Thomas Aquinas
Catena Aurea in Ioannem
GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN

Translated by John Henry Newman
except Prooemium and bracketed portions by Joseph Kenny, O.P.


CONTENTS
*1**2**3**4**5**6**7**8**9**10**11*
*12**13**14* *15**16**17**18**19**20**21*
Vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; et plena erat domus a maiestate eius; et ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum.
I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne; and the house was full of his majesty, and his train filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1)
Glossa: Divinae visionis sublimitate illustratus Isaias propheta dixit vidi dominum sedentem et cetera. Gloss: Isaiah, enlightened by the sublimity of the divine vision, said: "I saw the Lord sitting" etc.
Hieronymus, super Isaiam. Quis sit iste dominus qui videtur, in Evangelista Ioanne plenius discimus, qui ait: haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam Dei, et locutus est de eo: haud dubium quin Christum significet. Who is that Lord who is seen, we learn fully in the Evangelist John, who said, Thus said Isaiah, when he saw the glory of God, and spoke of him; no doubt he meant Christ.
Glossa: Unde ex verbis istis materia huius Evangelii, quod secundum Ioannem describitur, designatur. Gloss: Thus from those words the matter of this Gospel according to John is designated.
Ex Eccles. Hist. Quia enim nativitatem salvatoris secundum carnem vel Matthaeus, vel Lucas descripserant, reticuit hic Ioannes, et a theologia atque ab ipsa eius divinitate sumit exordium; quae pars sine dubio ipsi velut eximio per spiritum sanctum reservata est. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Because Matthew and Luke described the birth of the Savior according to the flesh, John was silent about that, and begins with theology and from his divinity. That aspect no doubt was reserved for this outstanding man by the Holy Spirit.
Alcuinus: Unde cum omnibus divinae Scripturae paginis Evangelium excellat, quia quod lex et prophetae futurum praedixerunt, hoc completum dicit Evangelium; inter ipsos autem Evangeliorum scriptores Ioannes eminet in divinorum mysteriorum profunditate: qui a tempore dominicae ascensionis per annos sexaginta quinque verbum Dei absque adminiculo scribendi usque ad ultima Domitiani tempora praedicavit; sed post occisionem Domitiani, cum, Nerva permittente, de exilio rediisset Ephesum, compulsus ab episcopis Asiae, de coaeterna patri divinitate Christi scripsit adversus haereticos, qui Christum ante Mariam fuisse negabant. Unde merito in figura quattuor animalium aquilae volanti comparatur, quae volat altius cunctis avibus, et solis radios irreverberatis aspicit luminibus. Alcuin: Since the Gospel isthe summit of all Scriptur, John excels among the writers of the gospels in treating the depths of the divine mysteries. He preached the word of God without any writing from the time of the Lord's Ascension for 65 years, until the endo of the reign of Domitian. But, after Domitian was killed, with the permission of Nerva, he returned from exile to Ephesus, the bishops of Asia compelled him to write against the heretics about the divinity of Christ which is coeternal with the Father, against the heretics who denied that Christ existed before Mary. Therefore, among the four animals, he is deservedly represented by the flying eagle, which flies higher than all birds, and looks at the sun's rays with unshaken vision.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Transcendit enim Ioannes omnia cacumina terrarum, transcendit omnes campos aeris, transcendit omnes altitudines siderum, transcendit omnes choros et legiones Angelorum: nisi enim transcenderet ista omnia quae creata sunt, non perveniret ad eum per quem facta sunt omnia. Augustine, on John: John transcends all corners of the earth, all fields of air, all hights of the stars, all choirs and legions of angels. For if he did not transcend all those things which are created, he wold not reach Him through whom all things were made.
Augustinus, de Cons. Evang. Ex quo intelligi datur, si diligenter advertas, tres Evangelistas temporalia facta domini et dicta quae ad informandos mores vitae praesentis maxime valerent, prosecutos, circa activam virtutem fuisse versatos; Ioannem vero facta domini multo pauciora narrantem, dicta vero eius, praesertim quae Trinitatis unitatem et vitae aeternae felicitatem insinuarent, diligentius et uberius conscribentem, in virtute contemplativa commendanda suam intentionem praedicationemque tenuisse. Unde animalia tria, per quae tres alii Evangelistae designantur, sive leo, sive homo, sive vitulus, in terra gradiuntur: quia tres Evangelistae in his maxime occupati sunt quae Christus in carne operatus est, et quae praecepta mortalis vitae exercendae carnem portantibus tradidit; at vero Ioannes supra nubila infirmitatis humanae velut aquila volat, et lucem incommutabilis veritatis acutissimis atque firmissimis oculis cordis intuetur: ipsam enim maxime divinitatem domini, qua patri est aequalis, intendit, eamque praecipue suo Evangelio, quantum inter homines sufficere credidit, commendare curavit. Augustine, on the Consistency of the Gospels: If you carefully observe, you can see that the other three Evangelists concentrated on those temporal deeds and sayings of the Lord which are most important for living the present life well; thus they were concerned with the active life. But John narrated many fewer events of the Lord, but put his energy into writing about his words, especially those that teach about the unity of the Trinity and the happiness of eternal life. Thus the three animals symbolizing the other three Evangelists, i.e., the lion, man, and bull, walk on the earth, because these three Evangelists are most concerned with what Christ did in the flesh, and about the commands which he gave mortal men for right living in this life. John, however, flies like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness, and looks at the light of unchangeable truth with the sharpest and firmest eyes of the heart. For he focused mostly on the divinity of the Lord, in which he is equal to the Father, and in his Gospel he preached that as fully as he thought necessary for people to understand.
Glossa: Potest igitur Evangelista Ioannes cum Isaia propheta dicere vidi dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, inquantum acumine visus sui Christum in divinitatis maiestate regnantem inspexit; quae quidem etiam sua natura excelsa est, et super omnia alia elevata. Dicat etiam Evangelista Ioannes et plena erat domus a maiestate eius: quia per ipsum narrat omnia esse facta, et suo lumine omnes homines in hunc mundum venientes illustrari. Dicat etiam quod ea quae sub ipso erant, replebant templum; quia dicit verbum caro factum est; et vidimus gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis, secundum quod de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Sic igitur praemissa verba materiam huius Evangelii continent, in quo ipse Ioannes dominum super solium excelsum sedentem insinuat, divinitatem Christi ostendens; et terram ab eius maiestate impleri ostendit, dum omnia per eius virtutem in esse producta ostendit, et propriis perfectionibus repleta; et inferiora eius, idest humanitatis mysteria, templum, idest Ecclesiam, replere docet, dum in sacramentis humanitatis Christi et gratiam et gloriam fidelibus repromittit. Gloss: The Evangelist John can say with Isaiah: "I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne," because by his insight he saw Christ reigning in the majesty of divinity, which is by nature most high and elevated above all else. The Evangelist John also could say: "And the house was full of his majesty", because he tells of Him through whom all things were made, and he says that all men coming into this world are enlightened by his light. He could also say: "His train filled the temple," because he says "The Word became flesh, and we saw his glory as of the onlybegotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, from whose fullness we all received." Thus the preceding words contain the matter of this Gospel. In it John himself points out the Lord sitting on a high throne, when he shows the divintiy of Ghrist. He shows that the earth was filled with his majesty, when he shows that all things were made through his power, and are filled with their own perfections. And he teaches that his train, that is the mysteries of his humanity, fill the temple, that is the Church, when he assures the faithful grace and glory in the sacraments of the humanity of Christ.
Chrysostomus, in Ioannem. Quando igitur barbarus hic et indisciplinatus talia loquitur quae nullus eorum qui in terra sunt hominum novit unquam, si hic solus esset, miraculum magnum esset. Nunc autem cum his et aliud isto maius tribuit argumentum, quod a Deo inspirata sunt ei quae dicuntur hic, scilicet quod omnes audiunt, et suadet omnibus per omne tempus. Quis ergo non admirabitur habitantem in eo virtutem? Chrysostom, on John: If an uneducated barbarian speaks things that no one on earth ever knew, and he alone knows it, that would be a big miracle. But now we have a greater argument than that what is said here is inspired by God, and that is because all hear, and all believe, over all time. Who then would not admire one who has such power.
Origenes: Ioannes interpretatur gratia Dei, sive in quo est gratia, vel cui donatum est. Cui autem theologorum donatum est ita abscondita summi boni penetrare mysteria, et sic humanis mentibus intimare? Origen: John menas "grace of God", or one who has or has been given grace. Which theologian has ever been given the ability to penetrate the hidden mysteries of the Supreme Good, and teach them to human minds?

CHAPTER I
Lectio 1
1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος,
1a. In the beginning was the Word,

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Omnibus aliis Evangelistis ab incarnatione incipientibus, Ioannes transcurrens conceptionem, nativitatem, educationem, augmentationem, mox de aeterna nobis generatione narrat, dicens in principio erat verbum. CHRYS. While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Quod Graece logos dicitur, Latine et rationem et verbum significat; sed hoc melius verbum interpretatur, ut significetur non solum ad patrem respectus, sed ad illa etiam quae per verbum facta sunt operativa potentia. Ratio autem, etsi nihil per eam fiat, recte ratio dicitur. AUG. The Greek word “logos” signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quotidie autem dicendo verba viluerunt nobis, quia sonando et transeundo viluerunt. Est verbum et in ipso homine quod manet intus: nam sonus procedit ex ore. Est verbum quod vere specialiter dicitur illud quod intelligis de sono, non ipse sonus. AUG. Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remains inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceeds out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound.
Augustinus de Trin: Quisquis autem potest intelligere verbum, non solum antequam sonet, verum etiam antequam sonorum eius imagines cogitatione volvantur, iam potest videre per hoc speculum atque in hoc aenigmate aliquam verbi similitudinem, de quo dictum est in principio erat verbum. Necesse est enim cum id quod scimus loquimur, ut ex ipsa scientia quam memoria tenemus, nascatur verbum, quod eiusmodi sit omnino cuiusmodi est illa scientia de qua nascitur. Formata quippe cogitatio ab ea re quam scimus, verbum est, quod in corde dicimus; quod nec Graecum est, nec Latinum, nec linguae alicuius. Sed cum id opus est in eorum quibus loquimur proferre notitiam, aliquod signum quo significetur assumitur. Proinde verbum quod foris sonat, signum est verbi quod intus latet, cui magis verbi competit nomen: nam illud quod profertur carnis ore, vox verbi est, verbumque et ipsum dicitur propter illud a quo ut foris appareat sumptum est. Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it... Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.
Basilius: Hoc autem verbum non est humanum verbum. Quomodo enim erat in principio humanum verbum, ultimo loco accipiente homine generationis principium? Non igitur in principio verbum erat humanum, sed nec Angelorum: omnis enim creatura infra saeculorum terminos est, a creatore essendi sumens principium. Sed audi Evangelium decenter: ipsum enim, unigenitum verbum dixit. BASIL; This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Si autem quis dixerit: cur patrem dimittens, mox nobis de filio loquitur? Quoniam ille quidem manifestus omnibus erat, etsi non ut pater, sed ut Deus, unigenitus autem ignorabatur: ideo decenter eam, quae de isto est, cognitionem confestim initio studuit imponere his qui nesciebant eum; sed neque patrem in his quae de filio sunt sermonibus tacuit. Propter hoc autem et verbum eum vocavit. Quia enim docturus erat quod hoc verbum unigenitus est filius Dei; ut non passibilem aestimet quis generationem, praeveniens verbi nuncupatione, destruit perniciosam suspicionem, esse ex Deo filium impassibiliter ostendens. Secunda vero ratio est, quia ea quae sunt patris nobis annuntiare debebat. Non simpliciter vero eum verbum dixit, sed cum articuli adiectione, a reliquis ipsum separans. Consuetudo enim est Scripturae verba vocare leges Dei et praecepta: hoc autem verbum substantia quaedam est, hypostasis, ens, ex ipso proveniens impassibiliter patre. CHRYS. But why omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all; though not as the Father, yet as God; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was meet then, he endeavors first of all to inculcate the knowledge of the Son on those who knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he altogether silent on the Father. And inasmuch as he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no one might think this a possible generation, he makes mention of the Word in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and show that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare to us the things of the Father. But he does not speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God’s laws and commandments words; but this Word is a certain Substance, or Person, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.
Basilius: Quare igitur verbum? Quia impassibiliter natum est; quia est generantis imago, totum in seipso generantem demonstrans, nihil inde separans, sed in seipso perfectum existens. BASIL; Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.
Augustinus de Trin: Sicut enim scientia nostra illi scientiae Dei, sic nostrum verbum quod nascitur de nostra scientia, dissimile est illi verbo Dei, quod natum est de patris essentia. Tale est autem, ac si dicerem de patris scientia, de patris sapientia; vel, quod est expressius, de patre scientia, de patre sapientia. Verbum ergo Dei patris unigenitus filius, per omnia patri similis et aequalis: hoc enim est omnino quod pater, non tamen pater: quia iste filius, ille pater: ac per hoc novit omnia quae novit pater; sed ei nosse de patre est, sicut esse: nosse enim et esse ibi unum est; et ideo patri, sicut esse non est a filio, ita nec nosse. Proinde, tamquam seipsum dicens, pater genuit verbum sibi aequale per omnia: non enim seipsum integre perfecteque dixisset, si aliquid minus aut amplius esset in eius verbo quam in seipso. Nostrum autem verbum interius, quod invenimus esse utcumque illi simile, quantum sit etiam dissimile, non pigeat intueri. Est enim verbum mentis nostrae quandoque formabile, nondum formatum, quiddam mentis nostrae, quod hac atque hac volubili quadam motione iactamus, cum a nobis nunc id, nunc illud, sicut inventum fuerit vel occurrerit, cogitatur; et tunc fit verum verbum quando illud quod nos diximus volubili motione iactare, ad id quod scimus pervenit, atque inde formatur, eius omnimodam similitudinem capiens; ut quomodo res quaeque scitur, sic etiam cogitetur. Quis non videat quanta sit hic dissimilitudo ab illo Dei verbo, quod in forma Dei sic est ut non ante fuerit formabile, postea formatum, non aliquando possit esse informe, sed sit forma simplex, et simpliciter aequalis ei de quo est? Quapropter ita dicitur illud Dei verbum, ut Dei cogitatio non dicatur; ne aliquid esse quasi volubile dicatur in Deo, quod nunc habeat, nunc accipiat formam ut verbum sit, eamque possit amittere, atque informiter quodammodo volutari. AUG. As our knowledge differs from God’s, so does our word, which arises from our knowledge, differ from that Word of God, which is born of the Father’s essence; we might say, from the Father’s knowledge, the Father’s wisdom, or, more correctly, the Father Who is Knowledge, the Father Who is Wisdom. The Word of God then, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, is in all things like and equal to the Father; being altogether what the Father is, yet not the Father; because the one is the Son, the other the Father. And thereby He knows all things which the Father knows; yet His knowledge is from the Father, even as is His being: for knowing and being are the same with Him; and so as the Father’s being is not from the Son, so neither is His knowing. Wherefore the Father begat the Word equal to Himself in all things as uttering forth Himself. For had there been more or less in His Word than in Himself, He would not have uttered Himself fully and perfectly. With respect however to our own inner word, which we find, in whatever sense, to be like the Word, let us not object to see how very unlike it is also. A word is a formation of our mind going to take place, but not yet made, and something in our mind which we toss to and fro in a slippery circuitous way, as one thing and another is discovered, or occurs to our thoughts. When this, which we toss to and fro, has reached the subject of our knowledge, and been formed therefrom, when it has assumed the most exact likeness to it, and the conception has quite answered to the thing; then we have a true word. Who may not see how great the difference is here from that Word of God, which exists in the Form of God in such wise, that It could not have been first going to be formed, and afterwards formed, nor can ever have been unformed, being a Form absolute, and absolutely equal to Him from Whom It is. Wherefore; in speaking of the Word of God here nothing is said about thought in God; lest we should think there was any thing revolving in God, which might first receive form in order to be a Word, and afterwards lose it, and be canted round and round again in an unformed state.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Est enim verbum Dei forma quaedam non formata, sed forma omnium formarum, forma incommutabilis, sine lapsu, sine defectu, sine tempore, sine loco, superans omnia, existens in omnibus fundamentum quoddam, in quo sunt, et fastigium sub quo sunt. AUG. Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed form accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.
Basilius: Habet autem et verbum nostrum exterius divini verbi similitudinem quamdam: nam nostrum verbum totam declarat mentis conceptionem: quae namque mente concepimus, ea verbo proferimus. Et quidem cor nostrum quasi fons quidam est: verbum vero prolatum quasi quidam rivulus manans ex ipso. BASIL; Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Considera etiam in Evangelista prudentiam spiritualem. Noverat homines id quod antiquius est et quod est ante omnia maxime honorantes et ponentes Deum: propter hoc primum dicit principium: in principio, inquit, erat verbum. CHRYS. Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that men honored most what was as most ancient, and that honoring what is before every thing else, they conceived of it as God. On this account he mentions first the beginning, saving, In the beginning was the Word.
Origenes in Ioannem: Plura autem sunt signata ab hoc nomine principium. Est enim principium, sicut itineris et longitudinis, secundum illud: initium boni itineris iustorum exercitium. Est autem principium et generationis, iuxta illud: hoc est principium creaturae domini. Sed etiam Deum non enormiter asseret aliquis omnium principium. Illud etiam ex quo sicut ex praeiacente materia alia fiunt, principium est penes eos qui credunt illam ingenitam. Est enim principium secundum speciem; sicut Christus principium eorum est qui secundum imaginem Dei formati sunt. Est etiam principium disciplinae, secundum illud: cum deberetis esse magistri propter tempus, rursus indigetis ut doceamini quae sunt elementa exordii sermonum Dei. Duplex enim est documenti principium: hoc quidem natura, hoc vero quoad nos; ut si dicatur, initium sapientiae fore natura quidem Christum, inquantum sapientia et verbum Dei est; quoad nos vero inquantum verbum caro factum est. Tot igitur significatis ad praesens nobis de principio occurrentibus, potest accipi illud ex quo quid est agens. Conditor enim Christus est velut principium, secundum quod sapientia est; ut verbum in principio, quasi in sapientia sit. Plura enim bona de salvatore dicuntur. Velut igitur vita in verbo est, sic verbum in principio, idest in sapientia erat. Considera vero si possibile est secundum hoc significatum accipere nos principium, prout secundum sapientiam, et exempla quae in ea sunt, fiunt omnia; vel quia principium filii pater est, et principium creaturarum, et omnium entium; per illud in principio erat verbum, verbum filium intelligas in principio, idest in patre, dictum fore. ORIGEN; There are many significations of this word beginning. For there is a beginning of a journey, and beginning of a length, according to Proverbs, The beginning of the right path is to do justice. There is a beginning too of a creation, according to Job, He is the beginning of the ways of God. Nor would it be incorrect to say, that God is the Beginning of all things. The preexistent material again, where supposed to be original, out of which any thing is produced, is considered as the beginning. There is a beginning also in respect of form: as where Christ is the beginning of those who are made according to the image of God. And there is a beginning of doctrine, according to Hebrews; When for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God. For there are two kinds of beginning of doctrine: one in itself, the other relative to us; as if we should say that Christ, in that He is the Wisdom and Word of God, was in Himself the beginning of wisdom, but to us, in that He was the Word incarnate. There being so many significations then of the word, we may take it as the Beginning through Whom, i.e. the Maker; for Christ is Creator as The Beginning, in that He is Wisdom; so that the Word is in the beginning, i.e. in Wisdom; the Savior being all these excellences at once. As life then is in the Word, so the Word is in the Beginning, that is to say, in Wisdom. Consider then if it be possible according to this signification to understand the Beginning, as meaning that all things are made according to Wisdom, and the patterns contained therein; or, inasmuch as the Beginning of the Son is the Father, the Beginning of all creatures and existences, to understand by the text, In the beginning was the Word, that the Son, the Word, was in the Beginning, that is, in the Father.
Augustinus de Trin: Aut in principio sic dictum est ac si diceretur: ante omnia. AUG. Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.
Basilius: Praevidit enim spiritus sanctus futuros quosdam invidentes gloriae unigeniti, qui praeferrent sophismata ad subversionem auditorum: quia si genitus est, non erat; et antequam genitus esset, non erat. Ne igitur talia garrire praesumant, spiritus sanctus ait in principio erat verbum. BASIL; The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, he was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost says, In the beginning was the Word.
Hilarius de Trin: Transeunt tempora, transeunt saecula, tolluntur aetates: pone aliquid quod voles tuae opinionis principium: non tenes tempore: erat enim unde tractatur. HILARY; Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning you will in your imagining, you grasp it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sicut autem quis cum stat in navi secus littus, videt civitates et portus, cum vero eum aliquis in medium pelagi duxerit, a prioribus quidem desistere facit, non tamen alicubi defigit ei oculum, ita Evangelista hic super omnem nos ducens creaturam, suspensum dimittit oculum, non dans suspicere aliquem finem ad superiora: hoc enim in principio erat semper et infinite essendi significativum est. CHRYS. As then when our ship is near shore, cities and port pass in survey before us, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nothing whereon to fix; the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacancy on an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and infinite essence.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Sed dicunt: si filius est, natus est; hoc fatemur. Adiungunt deinde: si natus est patri filius, erat pater antequam ei filius nasceretur; hoc respuit fides. Ergo ait: rationem mihi redde quomodo et filius nasci potuit patri, ut coaevus esset ei a quo natus est. Post patrem enim nascitur filius, utique patri morituro successurus. Similitudines adhibent de creaturis; et nobis laborandum est ut et nos inveniamus similitudines earum rerum quas astruimus. Sed quomodo possumus in creatura invenire coaeternum, quando in creatura nil invenimus aeternum? Sed si possunt inveniri haec duo coaeva, generans et generatum, ibi intelligimus coaeterna. Ipsa quidem sapientia dicta est in Scripturis candor lucis aeternae, dicta est imago patris. Hinc capiamus similitudinem, ut inveniamus coaeva, ex quibus intelligamus coaeterna. Nemo autem dubitat, quod splendor de igne exit. Ponamus ergo ignem patrem illius splendoris: mox quidem ut lucernam accendo, simul cum igne et splendor existit. Da mihi hic ignem sine splendore, et credo tibi patrem sine filio fuisse. Imago existit de speculo, hominis intuentis speculum; existit imago mox ut aspector extiterit: sed ille qui inspicit erat antequam accederet ad speculum. Ponamus ergo aliquid natum super aquam, ut virgultum, aut herbam: nonne cum imagine sua nascitur? Si ergo semper esset virgultum, semper esset et imago de virgulto. Quod autem de alio est, utique natum est. Potest ergo semper esse generans, et semper cum illo quod de eo natum est. Sed dicet aliquis: ecce intellexi aeternum patrem, coaeternum filium; tamen sicut effusum splendorem minus igne lucentem, aut sicut effusam imaginem minus quam virgultum existentem dicimus. Non, sed aequalitas omnimoda est. Non credo, ait, quia non invenisti similitudinem. Fortassis autem invenimus in creatura quomodo intelligamus filium et coaeternum patri, et nequaquam minorem; sed non illud possumus invenire in uno genere similitudinum. Iungamus ergo ambo genera: unum unde ipsi dant similitudines, et alterum unde nos dedimus. Dederunt enim illi similitudinem ex his quae praeceduntur tempore ab his a quibus nascuntur, sicut homo de homine; sed tamen homo et homo sunt eiusdem substantiae. Laudamus ergo in ista nativitate aequalitatem naturae: deest aequalitas temporis. In illo autem genere similitudinum quod nos dedimus de splendore ignis et de imagine virgulti, aequalitatem naturae non invenis, invenis coaevitatem. Totum ergo ibi quod hic ex partibus singulis et rebus singulis invenitur; et non hoc solum quod in creaturis, totum invenio ibi sed tamquam in creatore. AUG. They say, however, if He is the Son, He was born. We allow it. They rejoin: if the Son was born to the Father, the Father was, before the Son was born to Him. This the Faith rejects. Then they say, explain to us how the Son could; be born from the Father, and yet be coeval with Him from whom He is born: for sons are born after their fathers, to succeed them on their death. They adduce analogies from nature; and we must endeavor likewise to do the same for our doctrine. But how can we find in nature a coeternal, when we cannot find an eternal? However, if a thing generating and a thing generated can be found any where coeval, it will be a help to forming a notion of coeternals. Now Wisdom herself is called in the Scriptures, the brightness of Everlasting Light, the image of the Father. Hence then let us take our comparison, an from coevals form a notion of coeternals. Now no one doubts that brightness proceeds from fire: fire then we may consider the father of the brightness. Presently, when I light a candle, at the same instant with the fire, brightness arises. Give me the fire without the brightness, and I will with you believe that the Father was without the Son. An image is produced by a mirror. The image exists as soon as the beholder appears; yet the beholder existed before he came to the mirror. Let us suppose then a twig, or a blade of grass which has grown up by the water side. Is it not born with its image? If there had always been the twig, there would always have been the image proceeding from the twig. And whatever is from another thing, is born. So then that which generates may be coexistent from eternity with that which is generated from it. But some one will say perhaps, Well, I understand now the eternal Father, the coeternal Son: yet the Son is like the emitted brightness, which is less brilliant than the fire, or tile reflected image, which is less real than the twig. Not so: there is complete equality between Father and Son. I do not believe, he says; for you have found nothing whereto to liken it. However, perhaps we can find something in nature by which we may understand that the Son is both coeternal with the Father, and in no respect inferior also: though we cannot find any one material of comparison that will be sufficient singly, and must therefore join together two, one of which has been employed by our adversaries, the other by ourselves. For they have drawn their comparison from things which are preceded in time by the things which they spring from, man, for example, from man. Nevertheless, man is of the same substance with man. We have then in that nativity an equality of nature; an equality of time is wanting. But in the comparison which we have drawn from the brightness of fire, and the reflection of a twig, an equality of nature you cost not find, of time you lost. In the Godhead then there is found as a whole, what here exists in single and separate parts; and that which is in the creation, existing in a manner suitable able to the Creator.
Ex gestis Conc. Ephes: Propterea alicubi quidem filium appellat patris, alicubi autem verbum nominat, alicubi autem splendorem vocat Scriptura divina; singula horum nominum de ipso dicens, ut intelligas ea quae de Christo dicuntur, esse contra blasphemiam: quia enim tuus filius eiusdem tibi naturae fit, volens sermo ostendere unam substantiam patris et filii, dicit filium patris, qui ex eo natus est unigenitus. Deinde quoniam nativitas et filius apud nos ostentationem praebent passionis; ideo hunc filium appellat et verbum, impassibilitatem nativitatis eius nomine isto demonstrans. Sed quoniam pater quispiam factus ut homo, indubitanter senior filio suo demonstratur; ne hoc ipsum etiam de divina natura putares, splendorem vocat unigenitum patris: splendor enim nascitur quidem ex sole, non autem intelligitur sole posterior. Coexistere ergo semper patri filium splendor tibi denuntiet; impassibilitatem nativitatis ostendat verbum; consubstantialitatem filii nomen insinuet. EX GESTIS CONCILII EPHESINI; Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as your son is of the same nature with yourself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassability of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older shall his son, lest thou should think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the co-eternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassability of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed dicunt illi, quoniam hoc, idest in principio, non aeternitatem ostendit simpliciter: etenim et de caelo istud et de terra dictum. In principio, inquit Genesis, fecit Deus caelum et terram. Sed quid commune habet erat ad fecit? Sicut enim quod est, cum de homine quidem dicitur, tempus praesens significat tantum; cum autem de Deo, id quod est semper et aeternaliter; ita et erat de nostra quidem cum dicitur natura, praeteritum significat tempus; cum autem de Deo, aeternitatem ostendit. CHRYS. But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express in eternity: for that the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But are not made and was, altogether different For in like manner as the word is, when spoken of man, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, that which always and eternally is; so too was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but predicated of God, eternity.
Origenes: Sum enim verbum duplicem habet significationem: aliquando enim temporales motus secundum analogiam aliorum verborum declarat, aliquando substantiam uniuscuiusque rei, de qua praedicatur, sine temporali motu ullo designat; ideo et substantivum vocatur. ORIGEN; The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.
Hilarius de Trin: Respice igitur ad mundum, intellige quid de eo scriptum est: in principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Fit ergo in principio quod creatur, et aetates continet quod in principio continetur ut fieret. Piscator autem illitteratus, indoctus, liber a tempore, solutus a saeculis est, vicit omne principium: erat enim quod est, neque in tempore aliquo concluditur ut coeperit quod erat potius in principio quam fiebat. HILARY; Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven en and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and you would contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advances beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.
Alcuinus: Contra eos ergo qui propter temporalem nativitatem dicebant Christum non semper fuisse, incipit Evangelista de aeternitate verbi, dicens in principio erat verbum. ALCUIN. To refute those who inferred from Christ’s Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.


Lectio 2
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
1b. And the Word was with God.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia maxime Dei hoc est proprium, aeternum et sine principio esse; hoc primum posuit: deinde ne quis audiens in principio erat verbum, ingenitum verbum dicat, confestim hoc removit dicens et verbum erat apud Deum. CHRYS. Because it is an especial attribute of God, to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God.
Hilarius de Trin: Sine principio enim est apud Deum, et qui abest a tempore, non abest ab auctore. HILARY; From the beginning He is With God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.
Basilius: Rursus hoc dicit propter blasphemantes quod non erat. Ubi ergo erat verbum? Non in loco incircumscriptibilia continentur. Sed ubi erat? Apud Deum: neque pater loco, neque filius circumscriptione aliqua continentur. BASIL; Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.
Origenes in Ioannem: Utile est etiam inducere, quod verbum dicitur ad aliquos fieri, puta ad Osee, vel Isaiam, aut Ieremiam: ad Deum autem non fit, quasi prius non ens apud ipsum: ex eo igitur quod iugiter est in eo, dicitur et verbum erat apud Deum: quia nec a principio a patre separatus est. ORIGEN; It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Non etiam dixit: in Deo erat, sed apud Deum erat, eam quae secundum hypostasim eius est aeternitatem nobis ostendens. CHRYS. He has not said, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to us that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person.
Theophylactus: Videtur autem mihi quod Sabellius ex hoc dicto subversus est. Ipse enim dicebat, quod pater et filius et spiritus sanctus una est persona, quae aliquando ut pater apparuit, aliquando ut filius, aliquando ut spiritus sanctus. Manifeste vero confunditur ex hoc verbo: et verbum erat apud Deum. Hic enim Evangelista alium declarat esse filium, alium Deum, scilicet patrem. THEOPHYL. Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another.

Lectio 3
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
1c. And the Word was God.

Hilarius de Trin: Dices: verbum sonus vocis est, enuntiatio negotiorum, et elocutio cogitationum: hoc verbum in principio apud Deum erat, quia sermo cogitationis aeternus est, cum qui cogitat sit aeternus. Sed quomodo in principio erat quod neque ante tempus, neque post tempus est? Et nescio an ipsum possit esse in tempore. Loquentium enim sermo neque est antequam loquantur, et cum locuti erunt, non erit: in eo enim ipso quod loquuntur, dum finiunt, iam non erit id unde coeperunt. Sed si primam sententiam rudis auditor admiseras, in principio erat verbum, de sequenti quid quaeris: et verbum erat apud Deum? Numquid audieras de Deo, ut sermonem reconditae cogitationis acciperes; aut fefellerat Ioannem quid esset momenti inter inesse et adesse? Id enim quod in principio erat, non in altero esse, sed cum altero praedicatur. Statum igitur verbi et nomen expecta; dicit namque et Deus erat verbum. Cessat sonus vocis et cogitationis eloquium. Verbum hic res est, non sonus; natura, non sermo; Deus, non inanitas est. HILARY; You will say, that a word is the sound of the voice, the enunciation of a thing, the expression of a thought: this Word was in the beginning with God, because the utterance of thought is eternal, when He who thinks is eternal. But how was that in the beginning, which exists no time either before, or after, I doubt even whether in time at all? For speech is neither in existence before one speaks, nor after; in the very act of speaking it vanishes; for by the time a speech is ended, that from which it began does not exist. But even if the first sentence, in the beginning was the Word, was through your inattention lost upon you, why dispute you about the next; and the Word was with God? Did you hear it said, “In God,” so that you should understand this Word to be only the expression of hidden thoughts? Or did John say with by mistake, and was not aware of the distinction between being in, and being with, when he said, that what was in the beginning, was not in God, but with God? Hear then the nature and name of the Word; and the Word was God. No more then of the sound of the voice, of the expression of the thought. The Word here is a Substance, not a sound; a Nature, not an expression; God, not a nonentity.
Hilarius de Trin: Simplex autem nuncupatio est, et caret offendiculo adiectionis alienae. Ad Moysen dictum est: dedi te Deum Pharaoni: sed numquid non adiecta nominis causa est, cum dicitur Pharaoni? Moyses enim Pharaoni Deus datus est, dum timetur, dum oratur, dum punit, dum medetur. Et aliud est Deum dari, et aliud Deum esse. Memini quoque et alterius nuncupationis, ubi dicitur: ego dixi: dii estis; sed in eo indulti nominis significatio est; et ubi refertur ego dixi, loquentis potius sermo est, quam rei nomen. Cum autem audio et Deus erat verbum, non dictum solum audio verbum, sed demonstratum esse intelligo quod Deus est. HILARY; But the title is absolute, and free from the offense of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given you for a god to Pharaoh: but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, you are gods. But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.
Basilius: Sic igitur excludens accusationem blasphemantium et quaerentium quid est verbum, respondet et Deus erat verbum. BASIL; Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.
Theophylactus: Vel aliter continua. Postquam verbum erat apud Deum, manifestum est quod duae personae erant, quamvis una natura in duabus existat; unde dicitur et Deus erat verbum; ita ut una natura sit patri et filio, cum sit una deitas. THEOPHYL. Or combine it thus: From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.
Origenes: Adiciendum etiam, quod verbum in eo quod fit ad prophetas, illustrat prophetas sapientiae lumine: apud Deum vero est verbum obtinens ab eo quod sit Deus; unde praelocavit hoc quod est verbum erat apud Deum, ei quod est Deus erat verbum. ORIGEN; We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He comes to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is God. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Et non ut Plato, hoc quidem intellectum quemdam, hoc vero animam mundi esse dicens: haec enim procul sunt a divina natura. Sed dicunt: pater cum articuli adiectione dictus est Deus, filius autem sine hac. Quid ergo, cum apostolus dicat: magni Dei et salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi; et rursus: qui est super omnia Deus; sed et Romanis scribens dicit: gratia vobis, et pax a Deo patre nostro sine adiectione articuli. Sed et superfluum erat hic apponere superius continue adiectum. Non igitur etsi non est adiectus filio articulus, propter hoc filius minor est Deus. CHRYS. Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this... But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle writes, The great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; and again, Who is over all, God; and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

Lectio 4
2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
2. The same was in the beginning with God.

Hilarius de Trin: Quia dixerat Deus erat verbum, trepido in dicto, et me insolens sermo commovet, cum unum Deum prophetae nuntiaverunt. Sed ne quo ultra trepidatio mea progredi possit, reddit sacramenti tanti piscator dispensationem, et refert ad unum omnia, sine contumelia, sine abolitione, sine tempore, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum: apud unum ingenitum Deum, ex quo ipse unius unigenitus Deus est, praedicatur. HILARY; Whereas he had said, the Word was God, the fearfulness, and strangeness of the speech disturbed me; the prophets having declared that God was One. But, to quiet my apprehensions, the fisherman reveals the scheme of this so great mystery, and refers all to one, without dishonor, without obliterating [the Person], without reference to time , saying, The Same was in the beginning with God; with One Unbegotten God, from whom He its, the One Only-begotten God.
Theophylactus: Et rursus ne suspicio diabolica aliquos conturbaret, ne forte cum verbum Deus sit, insurrexerit contra patrem, ut aliqui fabulantur gentilium, et separatus a patre fuerit ipsi patri contrarius, dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; quasi dicat: hoc Dei verbum nunquam a Deo extitit separatum. THEOPHYL. Again, to stop any diabolical suspicion, that the Word, because He was God, might have rebelled against His Father, as certain Gentiles fable, or, being separate, have become the antagonist of the Father Himself, he says, The Same was in the beginning with God; that is to say, this Word of God never existed separate from God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel ne audiens in principio erat verbum, aeviternum quidem aestimes, seniorem vero spatio aliquo patris vitam suscipias, induxit hoc erat in principio apud Deum: non enim fuit unquam solitarius ab illo; sed semper Deus apud Deum erat. Vel quia dixerat Deus erat verbum, ut non aestimet quis minorem esse deitatem filii, confestim cognoscitiva propriae deitatis ponit, et aeternitatem assumens, cum dicit hoc erat in principio apud Deum; et quod factum est adiciens omnia per ipsum facta sunt. CHRYS. Or, lest hearing that In the beginning was the Word, you should regard It as eternal, but yet understand the Father’s Life to have some degree of priority, he has introduced the words, The Same was in the beginning with God. For God was never solitary, apart from Him, but always God with God. Or forasmuch as he said, the Word was God, that no one might think the Divinity of the Son inferior, he immediately subjoins the marks of proper Divinity, in that he both again mentions Eternity, The Same was in the beginning with God; and adds His attribute of Creator, All things were made by Him.
Origenes: Vel aliter. Postquam praemiserat tres propositiones Evangelista, resumit tria in unum, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum. In primo enim trium didicimus in quo erat verbum, quia in principio erat; in secundo apud quem, quia apud Deum; in tertio quid erat verbum, quia Deus. Velut ergo demonstrans verbum praedictum, Deum, per hoc quod dicit hoc, et colligens in propositionem quartam hoc quod est in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum, ait hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Quaerat autem aliquis, cur non est dictum: in principio erat verbum Dei, et verbum Dei erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum Dei. Quisquis autem unicam veritatem fatebitur esse; palam est quoniam et demonstratio eius, quae est sapientia, una est. Sed si veritas una, et sapientia una, verbum quoque quod veritatem enuntiat, et sapientiam expandit in his qui susceptibiles sunt, unum siquidem erit. Nec hoc dicimus inficiantes verbum Dei fore, sed ostendentes utilitatem omissionis huius vocabuli Dei. Ipse quoque Ioannes in Apocalypsi dicit: et nomen eius verbum Dei. ORIGEN; Or thus, the Evangelist having begun with those propositions, reunites them into one, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. For in the first of the three we learnt in what the Word was, that it was in the beginning; in the second, with whom, with God; in the third who the Word was, God. Having, then, by the term, The Same, set before us in a manner God the Word of Whom he had spoken, he collects all into the fourth proposition, viz. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; into, the Same was in the beginning with God. It may be asked, however, why it is not said, In the beginning was the Word of God, and the Word of God was with God, and the Word of God was God? Now whoever will admit that truth is one, must needs admit also that the demonstration of truth, that is wisdom, is one. But if truth is one, and wisdom is one, the Word which enuntiates truth and develops wisdom in those who ho are capable of receiving it, must be One also. And therefore it would have been out of place here to have said, the Word of God, as if there were other words besides that of God, a word of angels, word of men, and so on. We do not say this, to deny that It is the Word of God, but to show the use of omitting the word God. John himself too in the Apocalypse says, And his Name is called the Word of God.
Alcuinus: Qualiter autem ponit substantivum verbum erat? Ut intelligeres omnia tempora praevenisse coaeternum Deo patri verbum. ALCUIN; Wherefore does he use the substantive verb, was? That you might understand that the Word, Which is coeternal with God the Father, was before all time.

Lectio 5
3 πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
3a. All things were made by him.

Alcuinus: Postquam dixit de natura filii, de operatione eius subiungit, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt; idest, quidquid est, sive in substantia, sive in aliqua proprietate. ALCUIN; After speaking of the nature of the Son, he proceeds to His operations, saying, All things were made by him, i.e. every thing whether substance, or property.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel aliter. Erat quidem verbum in principio, sed potuit non esse ante principium. Sed quid ille? Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Infinitum est per quod fit omne quod factum est; et cum ab eo sint omnia, et tempus ab eo est. HILARY; Or thus: [It is said], the Word indeed was in the beginning, but it may be that He was not before the beginning. But what says he; All things were made by him. He is infinite by Whom every thing, which is, was made: and since all things were made by Him, time is likewise.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Moyses quidem incipiens Scripturam veteris testamenti, de sensibilibus nobis loquitur, et haec enumerat per multa: in principio enim fecit Deus caelum et terram. Deinde inducit, quoniam et lux facta est, et firmamentum et stellarum naturae, et genera animalium. Evangelista vero haec omnia excedens uno verbo comprehendit, ut cognita auditoribus, ad altiorem festinans materiam, totum hunc librum instituens non de operibus, sed de conditore. CHRYS. Moses indeed, in the beginning of the Old Testament, speaks to us in much detail of the natural world, saying, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; and then relates how that the light, and the firmament, and the stars, and the various kinds of animals were created. But the Evangelist sums up the whole of this in a word, as familiar to his hearers; and hastens to loftier matter, making the whole of his book to bear not on the works, but on the Maker.
Augustinus super Genesim: Cum enim dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt, satis ostenditur et lux per ipsum facta, cum dixit Deus: fiat lux; et similiter de aliis. Quod si ita est, aeternum est, quod ait Deus: fiat lux, quia verbum Dei, Deus apud Deum, patri coaeternus est, quamvis creatura temporalis facta sit. Cum enim verba sint temporis, cum dicimus: quando et aliquando; aeternum tamen est in verbo Dei, quando aliquid fieri debeat; et tunc fit quando fieri debuisse in illo verbo est, in quo non est quando et aliquando: quoniam totum illud verbum aeternum est. AUG. Since all things were made by him, it is evident that light was as also, when God said, Let there be light. And in like manner the rest. But if so, that which God said, viz. Let there be light, is eternal. For the Word of God, God with God, is coeternal with the Father, though the world created by Him be temporal. For whereas our when and sometimes are words of time, in the Word of God, on the contrary, when a thing ought to be made, is eternal; and the thing is then made, when in that Word it is that it ought to be made, which Word has in It neither when, or at sometime, since It is all eternal.
Augustinus super Ioannem: Quomodo ergo potest fieri ut verbum Dei factum sit, quando Deus per verbum fecit omnia? Si et verbum ipsum factum est, per quod aliud verbum factum est? Si hoc dicis, quia est verbum verbi, per quod factum est illud; ipsum dico ego unigenitum filium Dei. Si autem non dicis verbum Dei, concede non factum verbum per quod facta sunt omnia. AUG. How then can the Word of God be made, when God by the Word made all things? For if the Word Itself were made, by what other Word was It made? If you say it was the Word of the Word by Which That was made, that Word I call the Only-Begotten Son of God. But if thou cost not call It the Word of the Word, then grant that that Word was not made, by which all things were made.
Augustinus de Trin: Et si factum non est, creatura non est; si autem creatura non est, eiusdem cum patre substantiae est, omnis enim substantia quae Deus non est, creatura est: et quae creatura non est, Deus est. AUG. And if It is not made, It is not a creature; but if It is not a creature, It is of the same Substance with the Father. For every substance which is not God is a creature; and what is not a creature is God.
Theophylactus: Solent autem Ariani dicere, quod sicut per serram ostium fieri dicimus, quasi per organum, sic et per filium omnia facta fuisse dicuntur, non quod ipse sit factor, sed organum; et sic facturam aiunt filium, tamquam factum ad hoc ut per eum omnia fierent. Nos autem ad huiusmodi fictores mendacii simpliciter respondemus. Si enim, ut dicitis, pater creasset ad hoc filium ut eo tamquam organo uteretur, videretur quod inhonorabilior sit filius quam quae facta sunt; sicut ea quae per serram sunt facta, ipso organo nobiliora existunt; nam serra propter ipsa facta est. Sic et propter ipsa quae facta sunt, ut aiunt, pater creavit filium; tamquam si non deberet Deus cuncta creare, nequaquam filium produxisset. Quid his verbis insanius? Sed aiunt: quare non dixit quod omnia verbum fecit; sed usus est hac praepositione per? Ne filium ingenitum intelligeres, et sine principio, et Dei conditorem. THEOPHYL. The Arians are wont to say, that all things are spoken of as made by the Son, in the sense in which we say a door is made by a saw, viz. as an instrument; not that He was Himself the Maker. And so they talk of the Son as a thing made, as if He were made for this purpose, that all things might be made by Him. Now we to the inventors of this lie reply simply: If, as you say, the Father had created the Son, in order to make use of Him as an instrument, it would appear that the Son were less honorable than the things made, just as things made by a saw are more noble than the saw itself; the saw having been made for their sake. In like way do they speak of the Father creating the Son for the sake of the things made, as it; had He thought good to create the universe, neither would He have produced the Son. What can be more insane than such language? They argue, however, why was it not said that the Word made all things, instead of the preposition by being used. For this reason, that you might not understand an Unbegotten and Unoriginate Son, a rival God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed si praepositio per conturbat te, et quaeris in Scriptura quod ipsum verbum omnia faceret, audi David: initio tu, domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Quod autem hoc de unigenito dixerit, addisces ab apostolo utente hoc verbo in epistola ad Hebraeos de filio.

Si vero de patre hoc prophetam dixisse dicis, Paulum vero filio adaptasse; idem fit rursus. Neque enim id filio convenire dixisset, nisi vehementer consideraret quoniam quae sunt dignitatis, cohonorabilia sunt utrique. Si rursus per praepositio aliquam subiectionem tibi videtur inducere, cur Paulus eam de patre ponit? Fidelis dominus, per quem vocati sumus in societatem filii eius. Et iterum: Paulus apostolus per voluntatem Dei.

CHRYS. If the preposition by perplex you, and you would learn from Scripture that the Word Itself made all thin as, hear David, You, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. That he spoke this of the Only-Begotten, you learn from the Apostle, who in the Epistle to the Hebrews applies these words to the Son.

CHRYS. But if you say that the prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul applied it to the Son, it comes to the same thing. For he would not have mentioned that as applicable to the Son, unless he fully considered that the Father and the Son were of equal dignity. If again you dream that in the preposition by any subjection is implied, why does Paul use of the Father? as, God is faithful, by Whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son; and again, Paul an Apostle by the will of God.

Origenes: Erravit etiam in hoc Valentinus, dicens verbum esse quod mundanae creationis praestitit causam creatori. Sed si sic se habet veritas rerum, prout ipse intelligit, oportebat scriptum fore per creatorem universa consistere a verbo, non autem e contra per verbum a creatore. ORIGEN; Here too Valentines errs, saying, that the Word supplied to the Creator the cause of the creation of the world. If this interpretation is true, its should have been written that all things had their existence from the Word through the Creator, not contrariwise, through the Word from the Creator.

Lectio 6
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
3b. And without him was not any thing made.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ut non aestimes, dum dicit omnia per ipsum facta sunt, illa omnia solum dicere eum quae a Moyse dicta sunt, convenienter inducit et sine ipso factum est nihil, sive visibile quid, sive intelligibile. Vel aliter. Ne hoc quod dixit omnia per ipsum facta sunt, de signis suspiceris nunc dici, de quibus reliqui Evangelistae locuti sunt, inducit et sine ipso factum est nihil. CHRYS. That you may not suppose, when he says, All things were made by Him, that he meant only the things Moses had;, spoken of, he seasonably brings in, And without Him was not any thing made, nothing, that is, cognizable either by the senses, or the understanding. Or thus; Lest you should suspect the sentence, All things were made by Him, to refer to the miracles which the other Evangelists had related, he adds, and without Him was not any thing made.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel aliter. Hoc quod dicitur, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, non habet modum: est ingenitus qui factus a nemine est, est et ipse genitus ab innato. Reddidit auctorem cum socium professus est, dicens sine ipso factum est nihil; cum enim nihil sine eo, intelligo non esse solum: quia alius est per quem, alius sine quo non. HILARY; Or thus; That all things were made by him, is pronouncing too much, it may be said. There is an Unbegotten Who is made of none, and there is the Son Himself begotten from Him Who is Unbegotten. The Evangelist however again implies the Author, when he speaks of Him as Associated; saying, without Him was not any thing made. This, that nothing was made without Him, I understand to mean the Son’s not being alone, for ‘by whom’ is one thing, ‘not without whom another.
Origenes: Vel aliter. Ne existimares ea quae per verbum facta sunt, per se existentia, non contenta a verbo, ait et sine ipso factum est nihil; hoc est, nihil factum est extra ipsum; quia ipse ambit omnia, conservans ea. ORIGEN: Or thus, that you might not think that the things made by the Word had a separate existence, and were not contained in the Word, he says, and without Him was not any thing made: that is, not any thing was made externally of Him; for He encircles all things, as the Preserver of all things.
Augustinus de quaest. Nov. et Vet. Testam: Vel dicens sine ipso factum est nihil, nullo modo ipsum facturam esse suspicari debere edocuit. Quomodo enim potest dici: ipse est factura, cum nihil dicatur Deus sine ipso fecisse? AUG. Or, by saying, without Him was not any thing made, he tells us not to suspect Him in any sense to be a thing made. For how can He be a thing made, when God, it is said, made nothing without Him?
Origenes super Ioannem: Vel aliter. Si omnia per verbum facta sunt: de numero vero omnium est malitia, et totus fluxus peccati; et haec per verbum facta sunt; et hoc est falsum. Quantum igitur ad significata, nihil et non ens, unum sunt. Videtur autem apostolus non entia prava dicere: vocat Deus ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt. Totaque pravitas nihil dicitur, dum absque verbo facta est. ORIGEN; If all things were made by the Word, and in the number of all things is wickedness, and the whole influx of sin, these too were made by the Word; which is false. Now ‘nothing’ and ‘a thing which is not,’ mean the same. And the Apostle seems to call wicked things, things which are not, God calls those things which be not, as though they were. All wickedness then is called nothing, forasmuch as it is made without the Word. Those who say however ever that the devil is not a creature of God, err. In so far as he is the devil, he is not a creature of God; but he, whose character it is to be the devil, is a creature of God. It is as if we should say a murderer is not a creature of God, when, so far as he is a man, he is a creature of God.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Peccatum enim non per ipsum factum est: et manifestum est quia peccatum nihil est, et nihil fiunt homines cum peccant. Et idolum non per verbum factum est: habet quidem formam quamdam humanam, et ipse homo per verbum factus est; sed forma hominis in idolo non per verbum facta est: scriptum est enim: scimus quod nihil est idolum. Ergo ista non sunt facta per verbum; sed quaecumque facta sunt naturaliter, universa natura rerum, omnis omnino creatura ab Angelo usque ad vermiculum. AUG. For sin was not made by Him; for it is manifest that sin is nothing, and that men become nothing when they sin. Nor was an idol made by the Word. It has indeed a sort of form of man, and man himself was made by the Word; but the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word: for it is written, we know that an idol is nothing. These then were not made by the Word; but whatever things were made naturally, the whole universe, were; every creature from an angel to a worm.
Origenes: Valentinus autem exclusit ab omnibus per verbum factis quae sunt in saeculis facta, quae credit ante verbum extitisse, praeter evidentiam loquens; siquidem quae putantur ab eo divina, removentur ab omnibus, quae autem, velut ipse putat, penitus destruuntur, vere dicuntur omnia. Quidam enim falso dicunt Diabolum non esse creaturam Dei: inquantum enim Diabolus est, creatura Dei non est: is autem cui accidit esse Diabolum, divina est creatura; ac si diceremus, homicidam creaturam Dei non esse, qui tamen in eo quod homo est, creatura Dei est. ORIGEN; Valentinus excludes from the things made by the Word, all that were made in the ages which he believes to have existed before the Word. This is plainly false; inasmuch as the things which he accounts divine are thus excluded from the “all things,” and what he deems wholly corrupt are properly ‘all things!’
Augustinus de natura boni: Non autem sunt audienda deliramenta hominum, qui nihil hoc loco aliquid intelligendum esse putant, quia ipsum nihil in fine sententiae positum est; nec intelligunt nihil interesse utrum dicatur: sine ipso nihil factum est, an sine ipso factum est nihil. AUG. The folly of those men is not to be listened to, who think nothing is to be understood here as something because it is placed at the end of the sentence: as if it made so any difference whether it was said, without Him nothing was made, or, without Him was made nothing.
Origenes: Si accipiatur verbum pro eo quod in quolibet hominum est, quia et ipsum insitum est cuilibet ab eo quod in principio erat verbum, etiam sine hoc verbo nihil committimus, simpliciter accipiendo quod dicitur nihil. Ait enim apostolus quod sine lege peccatum mortuum erat; adveniente vero mandato peccatum revixit: non enim reputatur peccatum, lege non existente; sed nec peccatum erat, non existente verbo: quia dominus dicit: si non venissem et essem illis locutus, peccatum non haberent. Quaelibet enim excusatio deficit volenti dare responsum de crimine, dum verbo praesente ac iudicante quid est agendum, non obedit quis illi. Nec propter hoc inculpandum est verbum, sicut nec magister, per cuius disciplinam non remanet locus excusationis discipulo delinquenti velut de ignorantia. Omnia ergo per verbum facta sunt, non solum naturalia, sed etiam quae ab irrationabilibus fiunt. ORIGEN; If ‘the word’ be taken for that which is in each man, inasmuch as it was implanted in each by the Word, which was in the beginning then also, we commit nothing without this ‘word’ [reason] taking this word ‘nothing’ in a popular sense. For the Apostle says that sin was dead without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. But neither was there sin, when there was no Word, for our Lord says, If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin. For every excuse is without drawn from the sinner, if, with the Word present, and enjoining what is to be done, he refuses to obey Him. Nor is the Word to be blamed on this account; any more than a master, whose discipline leaves no excuse open to a delinquent pupil on the ground of ignorance. All things then were made by the Word, not only the natural world, but also whatever is done by those acting without reason.

Lectio 7
ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,
4a. In him was life.

Beda in Ioannem: Quia Evangelista dixit omnem creaturam factam esse per verbum, ne quis forte crederet mutabilem eius voluntatem, quasi qui subito vellet facere creaturam quam ab aeterno nunquam ante fecisset, ideo docere curavit, factam quidem creaturam in tempore; sed in aeterna creatoris sapientia, quando et quos crearet semper fuisse dispositum; unde dicit quod factum est in ipso, vita erat. BEDE; The Evangelist having said that every creature was made by the Word, lest perchance any one might think that His will was changeable, as though He willed on a sudden to make a creature, which from eternity he had not made; he took care to show that, though a creature was made in time, in the Wisdom of the Creator it had been from eternity arranged what and when He should create.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Potest autem sic punctari: quod factum est in ipso; et postea dicatur vita erat. Ergo totum vita est, si sic pronuntiaverimus: quid enim non in illo factum est? Ipse est enim sapientia Dei, et dicitur in Psalmo 103, 24: omnia in sapientia fecisti. Omnia igitur sicut per illum, ita et in illo facta sunt. Si ergo quod in illo factum est, vita est, ergo et terra vita est, et lapis vita est. Inhonestum est sic intelligere, ne nobis subrepat secta Manichaeorum, et dicat quia habet vitam lapis, et habet vitam paries: solent enim ista delirantes dicere; et cum reprehensi fuerint ac repulsi, quasi de Scripturis proferunt dicentes: ut quid dictum est: quod factum est in ipso, vita erat? Pronuntia ergo sic quod factum est: hic subdistingue; et deinde infer in ipso vita erat. Facta est enim terra; sed ipsa terra quae facta est non est vita. Est autem in ipsa Dei sapientia spiritualiter ratio quaedam qua terra facta est; haec vita est. Sicut arca in omni opere non est vita; arca in arte vita est, quia vivit anima artificis. Sic ergo quia sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, secundum artem continet omnia quae fiunt per ipsam artem, non haec continuo sunt vita; sed quidquid factum est, vita est in illo. AUG. ‘The passage can be read thus: What was made in Him was life. Therefore the whole universe is life: for what was there not made in Him? He is the Wisdom of God, as is said, In Wisdom have You made them all. All things therefore are made in Him, even as they are by Him. But, if whatever was made in Him is life, the earth is life, a stone is life. We must not interpret it so unsoundly, lest the sect of the Manicheans creep in upon us, and say, that a stone has life, and that a wall has life; for they do insanely assert so, and when reprehended or refuted, appeal as though to Scripture, and ask, why was it said, That which was made in Him. was life? Read the passage then thus: make the stop after What was made, and then proceed, In Him was life. The earth was made; but, the earth itself which was, as made is not life. In the Wisdom of God however there is spiritually a certain Reason after which the earth is made. This is Life. A chest in workmanship is not life, a chest in art is, inasmuch as the mind of the workman lives wherein that original pattern exists. And in this sense the Wisdom of God, by Which all things are made, contains in art ‘all things which are made, according to that art.’ And therefore whatever is made, is not in itself life, but is life in Him.
Origenes: Potest autem et sic distingui sine errore: quod factum est in ipso, et postea dicatur vita erat; ut sit sensus: omnia quae per ipsum et in ipso facta sunt, in ipso vita sunt, et unum sunt. Erant enim, hoc est in ipso subsistunt causaliter, priusquam sint in seipsis effective. Sed si quaeris, quomodo et qua ratione omnia quae per verbum facta sunt, in ipso vitaliter et uniformiter et causaliter subsistunt, accipe exempla ex creaturarum natura. Conspice quomodo omnium rerum quas mundi huius sensibilis globositas comprehendit, causae simul et uniformiter in isto sole, qui est maximum mundi luminare, subsistunt; quomodo numerositas herbarum et fructuum in singulis seminibus simul continetur; quomodo multiplices regulae in arte artificis unum sunt, et in animo disponentis vivunt; quomodo infinitus linearum numerus in uno puncto unum subsistit; et huiusmodi varia perspice exempla, ex quibus velut physicae theoriae pennis poteris arcana verbi mentis acie inspicere, et quantum datur humanis rationibus, videre quomodo omnia quae per verbum sunt facta, in ipso vivunt et facta sunt. ORIGEN; It may also be divided thus: That which was made in him; and then, was life; the sense being, that all things that were made by Him and in Him, are life in Him, and are one in Him. They were, that is, in Him; they exist as the cause, before they exist in themselves as effects. If you ask how and in what manner all things which were made by the Word subsist in Him vitally, immutably, causally, take some examples from the created world. See how that all things within the arch of the world of sense have their causes simultaneously and harmoniously subsisting in that sun which is the greatest luminary of the world: how multitudinous crops of herbs and fruits are contained in single seeds: how the most complex variety of rules, in the art of the artificer, and the mind of the director, are a living unit, how an infinite number of lines coexist in one point. Contemplate these several instances, and you will be able as it were on the wings of physical science, to penetrate with your intellectual eye the secrets of the Word, and as far as is allowed to a human understanding, to see how all things which were made by the Word, live in Him, and were made in Him.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel aliter potest legi: in eo quod dixerat sine ipso factum est nihil, posset aliquis perturbatus dicere: est ergo aliquid per alterum factum, quod tamen non sit sine eo factum; et si aliquid per alterum, licet non sine eo, iam non per eum omnia; quia aliud est fecisse, aliud est intervenisse facienti. Enarrat ergo Evangelista quid non sine eo factum sit, dicens quod factum est in eo. Hoc igitur non sine eo quod in eo factum est: nam id quod in eo factum est, etiam per eum factum est: omnia enim per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt. In ipso autem creata, quia nascebatur creator Deus; sed ex hoc sine eo nihil factum est, quod tamen in eo factum est, quia nascens Deus vita erat, et qui vita erat, non posteaquam natus erat, factus est vita. Nihil ergo sine eo fiebat ex his quae in eo fiebant, quia vita est in quo fiebant; et Deus qui ab eo natus est, non posteaquam natus est, sed nascendo quoque extitit. HILARY; Or it can be understood thus. In that he had said, without Him was not anything thing made, one might have been perplexed, and have asked, Was then any thing made by another, which yet was not made without Him? if so, then though nothing is made without, all things are not made by Him: it being one thing to make, another to be with the maker. On this account the Evangelist declares what it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. This then it was which was not made without Him, viz. what was made in Him. And that which was made in Him, was also made by Him. For all things were created in Him and by Him. Now things were made in Him, because He was born God the Creator. And for this reason also things that were made in Him, were not made without Him, viz. that God, in that He was born, was life, and He who was life, was not made life after being born. Nothing then which was made in Him, was made without Him, because He was life, in Whom they were made; because God Who was born of God was God, not after, but in that He was born.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Non apponemus finale punctum, ubi dicitur sine ipso factum est nihil, secundum haereticos. Illi enim volentes spiritum sanctum creatum dicere, aiunt quod factum est in ipso, vita erat. Sed ita non potest intelligi. Primum quidem neque tempus erat hic spiritus sancti meminisse; sed si de sancto spiritu hoc dictum est, age, secundum eorum interim legamus modum: ita enim nobis hoc inconveniens erit; cum enim dicitur quod factum est in ipso, vita erat, spiritum sanctum dicunt dictum esse vitam; sed vita haec et lux invenitur esse; inducit enim vita erat lux hominum. Quocirca, secundum eos, lucem omnium hunc spiritum dicit. Quod autem superius verbum dicit, hic consequenter et Deum et vitam et lucem nominat. Verbum autem caro factum est: erit igitur spiritus sanctus incarnatus, non filius. Ideo dimittentes hunc modum legendi, ad decentem veniamus lectionem et expositionem; hoc autem est cum dicitur omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est; ibi quiescere fac sermonem; deinde ab ea quae deinceps est dictione incipe, quae dicit in ipso vita erat; ac si dicat sine eo factum est nihil quod factum est, idest factibilium. Vides qualiter hac brevi adiectione omnia correxit supervenientia inconvenientia. Inducens enim sine eo factum est nihil, et adiciens quod factum est, et intelligibilia comprehendit, et spiritum sanctum excepit: spiritus enim sanctus factibilis non est. Haec igitur quae dicta sunt, de conditione rerum dixit Ioannes. Inducit autem et eum qui est de providentia sermonem, dicens in ipso vita erat. Quemadmodum in fonte qui generat abyssos, et in nullo minoratur fons; ita et in operatione unigeniti quaecumque credas per eum facta esse, non minor ipse factus est. Nomen autem vitae hic non solum conditionis est, sed et providentiae rerum, quae est secundum permanentiam earum. Cum autem audis quoniam in ipso vita erat, ne compositum aestimes: sicut enim pater habet vitam in seipso, ita dedit et filio vitam habere. Ergo sicut patrem non utique dices compositum esse, ita nec filium. CHRYS Or to give another explanation. We will not put the stop at without Him was not any thing made, as the heretics do. For they wishing to prove the Holy Ghost a creature, read, That which was made in Him, was life. But this cannot be so understood. For first, this was not the place for making mention of the Holy Ghost. But let us suppose it was; let us take the passage for the present according to their reading, we shall see that it leads to a difficulty. For when it is said, That which was made in Him, was life; they say the life spoken of is the Holy Ghost. But this life is also light; for the Evangelist proceeds, The life was the light of men. Wherefore according to them, he calls the Holy Ghost the light of all men. But the Word mentioned above, is what he here calls consecutively, God, and Life, and Light. Now the Word was made flesh. If follows that the Holy Ghost is incarnate, not the Son. Dismissing then this reading, we adopt a more suitable one, with the following meaning: All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made which was made: there we make a stop, and begin a fresh sentence: In Him was life. Without Him was not any thing made which was as made; i.e. which could be made. You see how by this short addition, he removes any difficulty which might follow. For by introducing without Him was not any thing made, and adding, which was made, he includes all things invisible, and excepts the Holy: Spirit: for the Spirit cannot be made. To the mention of creation, succeeds that of providence. In Him was life. As a fountain which produces vast depths of water, and yet is nothing diminished at the fountain head; so works the Only-Begotten. How great soever His creations be, He Himself is none the less for them. By the word life here is meant not only creation, but that providence by which the things created are preserved. But when you are told that in Him was life, do not suppose Him compounded; for, as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. As then you would not call the Father compounded, so neither should you the Son.
Origenes in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Oportet scire, quod salvator quaedam dicit non sibi esse, sed aliis; quaedam vero et sibi et aliis. In hoc ergo quod dicitur quod factum est in verbo, vita erat, scrutandum est an sibi et aliis vita est, vel aliis tantum; et si aliis, quibus aliis. Idem autem est vita et lux; lux autem hominum est: fit itaque hominum vita, quorum est lux; et sic in eo quod dicitur vita, salvator dicitur non sibi, sed aliis. Haec quidem vita verbo praeexistenti aderit, ex eo quod expiata a peccatis anima sit serena, et vita inseratur ei qui verbi Dei se susceptibilem statuit. Unde verbum quidem in principio non dixit factum: non enim erat quando principium verbo careret. Vita autem hominum non semper erat in verbo; sed haec vita hominum facta est, eo quod vita est lux hominum: cum enim homo non erat, nec lux hominum erat, luce secundum habitudinem ad homines intellecta; et ideo dicit quod factum est in verbo, vita erat; non autem: quod erat in verbo, vita erat. Invenitur autem alia littera non incongrue habens: quod factum est in eo, vita est. Si autem intelligamus vitam hominum quae in verbo fit, eum esse qui dixit: ego sum vita, fatebimur neminem infidelium Christi vivere, sed cunctos esse mortuos qui non vivunt in Deo. ORIGEN; Or thus: Our Savior is said to be some things not for Himself, but for others; others again, both for Himself and others. When it is said then, That which was as made in Him was life; we must inquire whether the life is for Himself and others, or for others only; and if for others, for whom? Now the Life and the Light are both the same Person: He is the light of men: He is therefore their life. The Savior is called Life here, not to Himself, but to others; whose Light He also is. This life is inseparable from the Word, from the time it is added on to it. For Reason or the Word must exist before in the soul, cleansing it from sin, till it is pure enough to receive the life, which is thus engrafted or inborn in every one who renders himself fit to receive the Word of God. Hence observe, that though the Word itself in the beginning was not made, the Beginning never having been without the Word; yet the life of men was not always in the Word. This life of men was made, in that It was the light of men; and this light of men could not be before man was; the light of men being understood relatively to men. And therefore he says, That which was made in the Word was life; not That which was in the Word was life. Some copies read, not amiss, “That which was made, in Him is life.” If we understand the life in the Word, to be He who says below, ‘I am the life,’ we shall confess that none who believe not. in Christ live, and that all who live not in God, are dead.

Lectio 8
καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:
4b. And the life was the light of men.

Theophylactus: Dixerat in ipso vita erat, ne putares quod absque vita sit verbum; nunc ostendit quod vita sit spiritalis, et lux rationalibus cunctis; unde dicitur et vita erat lux hominum; quasi dicat: lux ista non est sensibilis, sed intellectualis, illuminans ipsam animam. THEOPHYL. He had said, In him was life, that you might not suppose that the Word was without life. Now he shows that that life is spiritual, and the light of all reasonable creatures. And the life was the light of men: i.e. not sensible, but intellectual light, illuminating the very soul.
Augustinus super Ioannem: Ex ipsa enim vita illuminantur homines, pecora non illuminantur, quia non habent rationales mentes, quae possint videre sapientiam; homo autem factus ad imaginem Dei, habet rationalem mentem, per quam possit percipere sapientiam. Ergo illa vita per quam facta sunt omnia, lux est, et non quorumcumque animalium, sed hominum. AUG. Life of itself gives illumination to men, but to cattle not: for they have not rational souls, by which to discern wisdom: whereas man, being made in the image of God, has a rational soul, by which he can discern wisdom. Hence that life, by which all things are made, is light, not however of all animals whatsoever, but of men.
Theophylactus: Non autem dixit: lux est solum Iudaeis, sed omnium hominum; omnes enim homines, inquantum intellectum et rationem recepimus ab eo quod nos condidit verbo, intantum ab eo illuminari dicimur: nam ratio nobis tradita, per quam rationales dicimur, lux est ad operanda nos dirigens et non operanda. THEOPHYL. He said not, the Light of the Jews only, but of all men: for all of us, in so far as we have received intellect and reason, from that Word which created us, are said to be illuminated by Him. For the reason which is given to us, and which constitutes us the reasonable beings we are, is a light directing us what to do, and what not to do.
Origenes in Ioannem: Non est autem praetermittendum quod vitam praemittit luci hominum: inconsequens enim erat illuminari non viventem, et advenire illuminationi vitam. Si autem idem est vita erat lux hominum, quod solum hominum, erit Christus lux atque vita solorum hominum. Hoc autem opinari haereticum est. Non igitur quidquid dicitur aliquorum, illorum solum est: scriptum est enim de Deo, quod sit Deus Abraham, Isaac et Iacob; non tamen istorum tantum patrum dictus est Deus. Non ergo ex eo quod dicitur lux hominum, excluditur quin sit aliorum. Alius vero contendit ex eo quod scriptum est: faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram: quod quidquid ad imaginem ac similitudinem Dei factum est, intelligi debet per hominem. Sic igitur lux hominum lux cuiuslibet rationalis creaturae est. ORIGEN; We must not omit to notice, that he puts the life before the light of men. For it would be a contradiction to suppose a being without life to be illuminated; as if life were an addition to illumination. But to proceed: if the life was the light of men, meaning men only, Christ is the light and the life of men only; an heretical supposition. It does not follow then, when a thing is predicated of any, that it is predicated of those only; for of God it is written, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and yet He is not the God of those fathers only. In the same way, the light of men is not excluded from being the light of others as well. Some moreover contend from , Genesis, Let us make man after our image, that man means whatever is made after the image and similitude of God. If so, the light of men is the light of any rational creature whatever.

Lectio 9
5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
5. And the light shines in darkness.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Quia vita illa est lux hominum, sed stulta corda capere istam lucem non possunt, quia peccatis suis aggravantur, ut eam videre non possint; ne ideo cogitent quasi absentem esse lucem, quia eam videre non possunt, sequitur et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Quomodo enim homo positus in sole caecus, praesens est illi sol, sed ipse soli absens est; sic omnis stultus caecus est, et praesens est illi sapientia. Sed cum caeco praesens est, oculis eius absens est: non quia illa ipsi absens est, sed quia ipse absens est ab illa. AUG. Whereas that life is the light of men, but foolish hearts cannot receive that light, being so encumbered with sins that they cannot see it; for this cause lest any should think there is no light near them, because they cannot see it, he continues: And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. For suppose a blind man standing in the sun, the sun is present to him, but he is absent from the sun. In like manner every fool is blind, and wisdom is present to him; but, though present, absent from his sight, forasmuch as sight is gone: the truth being, not that she is absent from him, but that he is absent from her.
Origenes in Ioannem: Tenebrae autem huiusmodi hominum non natura sunt, secundum illud Pauli: eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. ORIGEN; This kind of darkness however is not in men by nature, according to the text in the Ephesians, You were some time darkness, but now are you light in the Lord.
Origenes: Vel aliter. Lux in tenebris fidelium animarum lucet, a fide inchoans, ad spem trahens. Imperitorum vero cordium perfidia et ignorantia lucem verbi Dei in carne fulgentis non comprehenderunt. Sed iste sensus moralis est. Physica vero horum verborum theoria talis est. Humana natura, etsi non peccaret, suis propriis viribus non lucere posset: non enim naturaliter lux est, sed particeps lucis: capax siquidem sapientiae est, non ipsa sapientia. Sicut ergo aer per semetipsum non lucet, sed tenebrarum vocabulo nuncupatur; ita nostra natura dum per seipsam consideratur, quaedam tenebrosa substantia est, capax ac particeps lucis sapientiae: et sicut aer dum solares radios participat, non dicitur per se lucere, sed solis splendor in eo apparere; ita rationabilis nostrae naturae pars, dum praesentiam verbi Dei possidet, non per se res intelligibiles et Deum suum, sed per insitum sibi divinum lumen cognoscit. Lux itaque in tenebris lucet: quia Dei verbum vita et lux hominum in nostra natura, quae per se investigata et considerata, informis quaedam tenebrositas invenitur, lucere non desinit: et quoniam ipsa lux omni creaturae est incomprehensibilis, tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. ORIGEN; Or thus, The light shines in the darkness of faithful souls, beginning from faith, and drawing onwards to hope; but the deceit and ignorance of undisciplined souls did not comprehended the light of the Word of God shining in the flesh. That however is an ethical meaning. The metaphysical signification of the words is as follows. Human nature, even though it sinned not, could not shine by its own strength simply; for it is not naturally light, but only a recipient of it; it is capable of containing wisdom, but is not wisdom itself. As the air, of itself, shines not, but is called by the name of darkness, even so is our nature, considered in itself; a dark substance, which however admits of and is made partaker of the light of wisdom. And as when the air receives the sun’s rays, it is not said to shine of itself, but the sun’s radiance to be apparent in it; so the reasonable part of our nature, while possessing the presence of the Word of God, does not of itself understand God, and intellectual things, but by means of the divine light implanted in it. Thus, The light shines in darkness: for the Word of God, the life and the light of men, ceases not to shine in our nature; though regarded in itself, that nature is without form and darkness. And forasmuch as pure light cannot be comprehended by any creature, hence the text: The darkness comprehended it not.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter totum ab illo loco et vita erat lux hominum. Primum nos de conditione docuerat; deinde dicit et quae secundum animam bona praebuit nobis veniens verbum; unde dicit et vita erat lux hominum. Non dicit: lux Iudaeorum; sed universaliter hominum: non enim Iudaei solum, sed et gentes ad hanc venerunt cognitionem. Non autem adiecit: et Angelorum; quoniam ei de natura humana sermo est, quibus verbum venit evangelizans bona. CHRYS. Or thus: throughout the whole foregoing passage he, had been speaking of creation; then he mentions the spiritual; benefits which the Word brought w with it: and the life was the light of men. He said not, the light of Jews, but of all men without exception; for not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also have come to this knowledge. The Angels he omits, for he is speaking of human nature, to whom the Word came bringing glad tidings.
Origenes: Quaerunt autem quare non verbum lux hominum dictum est, sed vita quae in verbo fit; quibus respondemus: quia vita quae ad praesens, non ea quae communis est rationalium et irrationalium dicitur, sed quae adiungitur verbo quod in nobis fit per participationem verbi primarii, ad discernendum apparentem vitam et non veram, et cupiendam veram vitam. Prius ergo participamus vitam quae apud quosdam quidem est potentia, non actu lux; qui scilicet non sunt avidi perquirere quae ad scientiam pertinent; apud quosdam vero et actu lux efficitur, qui, secundum apostolum, aemulantur dona meliora, scilicet verbum sapientiae. Si tamen et tunc idem est vita et lux hominum, nullus manens in tenebris perfecte vivere comprobatur, nec quisquam viventium consistit in tenebris. ORIGEN; But they ask, why is not the Word Itself called the light of men, instead of the life which is in the Word? We reply, that the life here spoken of is not that which rational and irrational animals have in common, but that which is annexed to the Word which is within us through participation of the primeval Word. For we must distinguish the external and false life, from the desirable and true. We are first made partakers of life: and this life with some is light potentially only, not in act; with those, viz. who are not eager to search out the things which appertain to knowledge: with others it is actual light, those who, as the Apostle said, covet earnestly the best gifts, that is to say, the word of wisdom. (If the life and the light of men are the same, whoso is in darkness is proved not to live, and none who lives abides in darkness.)
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vita enim adveniente nobis, solutum est mortis imperium; et luce lucente nobis, non ultra sunt tenebrae; sed semper manet vita quam mors superare non potest, nec tenebrae lucem; unde sequitur et lux in tenebris lucet. Tenebras mortem et errorem dicit: nam lux quidem sensibilis non in tenebris lucet, sed sine illis; praedicatio vero Christi in medio erroris regnantis fulsit; et eum disparere fecit, et in vitam mortem fecit mortuus Christus, ita eam superans ut eos qui detinebantur reduceret. Quia igitur neque mors eam superavit, neque error; sed fulgida est eius praedicatio ubique, et lucet cum propria fortitudine; propterea subdit et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. CHRYS. Life having come to us, the empire of death is dissolved; a light having shone upon us, there is darkness no longer: but there remains ever a life which death, a light which darkness cannot overcome. Whence he continues, And the light shines in darkness: by darkness meaning death and error, for sensible light does not shine in darkness, but darkness must be removed first; whereas the preaching of Christ shone forth amidst the reign of error, and caused it to disappear, and Christ by dying changed death into life, so overcoming it, that, those who were already in its grasp, were brought back again. Forasmuch then as neither death nor error has overcome his light, which is every where conspicuous shilling forth by its own strength; therefore he adds, And the darkness comprehended it not.
Origenes: Est etiam sciendum, quod sicut lux hominum nomen est duarum spiritualium rerum, sic et tenebrae: dicimus enim hominem lucem possidentem, opera lucis perficere, et etiam cognoscere quasi illustratum lumine scientiae; et e contrario tenebras dicimus illicitos actus, et eam quae videtur scientia, non est autem. Sicut autem pater lux est, et in eo tenebrae non sunt ullae, sic et salvator. Sed quia similitudinem carnis peccati subiit, non incongrue de eo dicitur, quod tenebrae in eo sunt aliquae, ipso in se suscipiente nostras tenebras ut eas dissiparet. Haec igitur lux, quae facta est vita hominum, radiat in tenebris animarum nostrarum, et venit ubi princeps tenebrarum harum cum genere bellat humano. Hanc lucem persecutae sunt tenebrae: quod patet ex his quae salvator et eius filii sustinent, pugnantibus tenebris contra filios lucis. Verum quia Deus patrocinatur, non invalescunt; unde non apprehendunt lucem, vel quia celeritatem cursus lucis subsequi non valent propter propriam tarditatem, vel quia si supervenientem expectant, fugantur luce appropinquante. Oportet autem id considerare, quod non semper tenebrae in sinistra parte sumuntur, sed quandoque in bona, posuit tenebras latibulum suum, dum ea quae sunt erga Deum, ignota et imperceptibilia sunt. De hac ergo laudata caligine dicam, quoniam versus lucem pergit, illamque apprehendit: quia quod erat caligo, dum ignorabatur, in lucem cognitam vertitur ei qui didicit. ORIGEN; As the light of men is a word expressing two spiritual things, so is darkness also. To one who possesses the light, we attribute both the doing the deeds of the light, and also true understanding, inasmuch as he is illuminated by the light of knowledge: and, on the other hand, the term darkness we apply both to unlawful acts, and also to that knowledge, which seems such, but is not. Now as the Father is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, so is the Savior also. Yet, inasmuch as he underwent the similitude of our sinful flesh, it is not incorrectly said of Him, that in Him there was some darkness; for He took our darkness upon Himself, in order that He might dissipate it. This Light therefore, which was made the life of man, shines in the darkness of our hearts, when the prince of this darkness wars with the human race. This Light the darkness persecuted, as is clear from what our Savior and His children suffer; the darkness fighting against the children of light. But, forasmuch as God takes up the cause, they do not prevail; nor do they apprehend the light, for they are either of too slow a nature to overtake the light’s quick course, or, waiting for it to come up to them, they are put to flight at its approach. We should bear in mind, however, that darkness is not always used in a bad sense, but sometimes in a good, as in Psalm xvii. He made darkness His secret place: the things of God being unknown and incomprehensible. This darkness then I will call praiseworthy, since it tends toward light, and lays hold on it: for, though it were darkness before, while it was not known, yet it is turned to light and knowledge in him who has learned.
Augustinus de Civ. Dei: Hoc autem initium sancti Evangelii quidam Platonicus aureis litteris perscribendum, et per omnes Ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. AUG. A certain Platonist once said, that the beginning of this Gospel ought to be copied in letters of gold, and placed in the most conspicuous place in every church.
Beda in Ioannem: Nam alii Evangelistae Christum in tempore natum describunt, Ioannes vero eumdem in principio testatur fuisse, dicens in principio erat verbum. Alii inter homines eum subito apparuisse commemorant; ille ipsum apud Deum semper fuisse testatur, dicens et verbum erat apud Deum. Alii eum verum hominem, ille verum confirmat Deum, dicens et Deus erat verbum. Alii hominem apud homines eum temporaliter conversatum; ille Deum apud Deum in principio manentem ostendit, dicens hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Alii magnalia quae in homine gessit perhibent; ille quod omnem creaturam per ipsum Deus pater fecerit, docet, dicens omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. BEDE; The other Evangelists describe Christ as born in time; John witnesses that He was in the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word. The others describe His sudden appearance among men; he witnesses that He was ever with God, saying, And the Word was with God. The others prove Him very man; he very God, saying, And the Word was God. The others exhibit Him as man conversing with men for a season; he pronounces Him God abiding with God in the beginning, saying, The Same was in the beginning with God. The others relate the great deeds which He did amongst men; he that God the Father made every creature through Him, saying, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any shiny made.

Lectio 10
6 ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης: 7 οὗτος ἦλθεν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός, ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι' αὐτοῦ. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ' ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Ea quae dicta sunt superius, de divinitate Christi dicta sunt, qui sic venit ad nos secundum quod apparuit homo. Quia igitur sic erat homo ut lateret in illo Deus, missus est ante illum magnus homo, per cuius testimonium inveniretur plusquam homo. Et quis est hic? Fuit homo. AUG. What is said above, refers to the Divinity of Christ. He came to us in the form of man, but man in such sense, as that the Godhead was concealed within Him. And therefore there was sent before a great man, to declare by his witness that He was more than man. And who was this? He was a man.
Theophylactus: Non Angelus, ut suspicionem multorum destrueret. THEOPHYL. Not an Angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion.
Augustinus: Et quomodo posset iste verum de Deo dicere, nisi missus a Deo? AUG. And how could he declare the truth concerning God, unless he were sent from God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Nihil de reliquo humanum esse aestimo eorum quae dicuntur ab illo: non enim quae eius sunt, sed quae mittentis omnia loquitur: ideo et Angelus nuncupatus est a propheta dicente: ego mitto Angelum meum. Angeli enim virtus est nihil proprium dicere. Hoc autem quod dicit fuit missus, non eius qui ad esse processus ostensivum est. Sicut autem Isaias missus fuit non aliunde quam a mundo, sed a statu quo vidit dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum, ad plebem; sic et Ioannes a deserto ad baptizandum mittitur; ait enim: qui misit me baptizare, ille mihi dixit: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. CHRYS. After this esteem nothing that he says as human; for he speaks not his own, but his that sent him. And therefore the Prophet calls him a messenger, I send My messenger, for it is the excellence of a messenger, to say nothing of his own. But the expression, was sent, does not mean his entrance into life, but to his office. As Esaias was sent on his commission, not from any place out of the world, but from where he saw the Lord sitting upon His high and lofty throne; in like manner John was sent from the desert to baptize; for he says, He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon Whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.
Augustinus: Quid vocabatur? Cui nomen erat Ioannes. AUG. What was he called? whose name was John?
Alcuinus: Idest gratia Dei, vel in quo est gratia, qui gratiam novi testamenti, idest Christum, suo testimonio primum mundo innotuit. Vel Ioannes interpretatur cui donatum est, quia per gratiam Dei donatum est illi regem regum non solum praecurrere, sed etiam baptizare. ALCUIN. That is, the grace of God, or one in whom is grace, who by his testimony first made known to the world the grace of the New Testament, that is, Christ. Or John may be taken to mean, to whom it is given: because that through the grace of God, to him it was given, not only to herald, but also to baptize the King of kings.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quare venit? Hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. AUG. Wherefore came he? The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light.
Origenes in Ioannem: Quidam improbare nituntur edita de Christo testimonia prophetarum, dicentes non egere testibus Dei filium habentem credulitatis sufficientiam tum in his quae protulit salubribus verbis, tum in mirabilibus operibus suis. Siquidem et Moyses credi meruit per verbum et virtutes, non egens praeviis testibus. Ad hoc dicendum est, quod multis existentibus causis inducentibus ad credendum, plerumque quidam ex hac demonstratione non admirantur, ex alia vero habent causam ut credant. Deus autem est qui pro cunctis hominibus homo factus est. Constat igitur quosdam ex dictis propheticis ad Christi admirationem coactos, mirantes tot prophetarum ante eius adventum voces, constituentes nativitatis eius locum, et alia huiusmodi. Illud quoque advertendum, quod prodigiosae virtutes ad credendum provocare poterant eos qui tempore Christi erant, non autem post longa tempora: nam fabulosa quaedam aestimata fuerunt: plus enim peractis virtutibus facit ad credulitatem quae cum virtutibus quaeritur prophetia. Est autem et tale quid dicere, quod quidam in hoc quod testimonium perhibent Deo, honorati sunt. Privare vult ergo chorum prophetarum ingenti gratia qui dicit, illos non oportere de Christo testimonium exhibere. Accessit autem his Ioannes, ut testimonium de luce perhibeat. ORIGEN; Some try to undo the testimonies of the Prophets to Christ, by saying that the Son of God had no need of such witnesses; the wholesome words which He uttered and His miraculous acts being sufficient to produce belief; just as Moses deserved belief for his speech and goodness, and wanted no previous witnesses. To this we may reply, that, where there are a number of reasons to make people believe, persons are often impressed by one kind of proof; and not by another, and God, Who for the sake of all men became man, can give them many reasons for belief in Him. And with respect to the doctrine of the Incarnation, certain it is that some have been forced by the Prophetical writings into an admiration of Christ by the fact of so many prophets having, before His advent, fixed the place of His nativity; and by other proofs of the same kind. It is to be remembered too, that, though the display of miraculous powers might stimulate the faith of those who lived in the same age with Christ, they might, in the lapse of time, fail to do so; as some of them might even get to be regarded as fabulous. Prophecy and miracles together are more convincing than simply past miracles by themselves. We must recollect too that men receive honor themselves from the witness which they bear to God. He deprives the Prophetical choir of immeasurable honor, whoever denies that it was their office to bear witness to Christ. John when he comes to bear witness to the light, follows in the train of those who went before him.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Non ea indigente testimonio, sed propter quid, ipse Ioannes docet, dicens ut omnes crederent per illum. Sicut enim carnem induit, ne omnes perderet; ita et praeconem hominem misit, ut cognatam audientes vocem, facilius advenirent. CHRYS. Not because the light wanted the testimony, but for the reason which John himself self gives, viz. that all might believe on Him. For as He put on flesh to save all men from death; so He sent before Him a human preacher, that the sound of a voice like their own, might the readier draw men to Him.
Beda: Non autem ait: ut omnes crederent in illum: maledictus enim homo qui confidit in homine; sed ut omnes crederent per illum; hoc est, per illius testimonium crederent in lucem. BEDE; He says not, that all men should believe in him; for, cursed be the man that trusts in man; but, that all men through him might believe; i.e. by his testimony believe in the Light.
Theophylactus: Si vero aliqui non crediderint, excusabilis permanet ipse: nam sicut si aliquis includens se in domo caliginis, et ipsum solis radius non illustret, ipse causam tribuit, et non sol; sic Ioannes, ut omnes crederent, missus fuit; sed si minime consecutum est, ipse huius rei causa non extitit. THEOPHYL. Though some however might not believe, he is not accountable for them. When a man shuts himself up in a dark room, so as to receive no light from the sun’s rays, he is the cause of the deprivation, not the sun. In like manner John was sent, that all men might believe; but if no such result followed, he is not the cause of the failure.
Chrysostomus: Quia vero multum apud nos maior qui testatur, eo cui testimonium perhibet, et dignior fide esse videtur; ne quis et de Ioanne hoc suspicetur, hanc suspicionem destruit, dicens non erat ille lux; sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Si vero non huic instans opinioni hoc resumpsit ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, superfluum esset quod dicitur, et magis iteratio sermonis quam explanatio doctrinae. CHRYS. Forasmuch however as with us, the one who witnesses, is commonly a more important, a more trustworthy person, than the one to whom he bears witness, to do away with any such notion in the present case the Evangelist proceeds; He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. If this were not his intention, in repeating the words, to bear witness of that Light, the addition would be superfluous, and rather a verbal repetition, than the explanation of a truth.
Theophylactus: Sed dicet aliquis: ergo neque Ioannem, neque sanctorum quempiam lucem esse vel fuisse dicemus. Sed si sanctorum aliquem lucem velimus dicere, ponemus lucem absque articulo; ut si interrogatus fueris utrum Ioannes est lux sine articulo, secure concedas; si vero cum articulo, non concedas. Non enim est ipsa lux principalior; sed lux dicitur quia secundum participationem lucem habeat a vero lumine. THEOPHYL. But it will be said, that we do not allow John or any of the saints to be or ever to have been light. The difference is this: If we call any of the saints light, we put light without the article. So if asked whether John is light, without the article, you may allow without hesitation that he is: if with the article, you alloy it not. For he is not very, original, light, but is only called so, on account of his partaking of the light, which comes from the true Light.

Lectio 11
9 ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
9. That was the true Light which lights every man that comes into the world.

Augustinus in Ioannem: De quo lumine Ioannes testimonium perhibeat, ostendit dicens erat lux vera. AUG. What Light it is to which John bears witness, he shows himself, saying, That was the true Light.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Quia superius de Ioanne dixerat, quod venit et missus est ut testetur de luce, ne quis hoc audiens propter testantis recentem praesentiam, de eo cui testimonium perhibetur, talem quamdam suspicionem accipiat, reduxit mentem, et ad eam quae supra omne principium est, transmisit existentiam, dicens erat lux vera. CHRYS. Or thus; Having said above that John had come, and was sent, to bear witness of the Light, lest any from the recent coming of the witness, should infer the same of Him who is witnessed to, the Evangelist takes us back to that existence which is beyond all beginning, saying, That was the true Light.
Augustinus: Quare additum est vera? Quia et homo illuminatus dicitur lux; sed vera lux illa est quae illuminat; nam et oculi nostri dicuntur lumina, et tamen nisi aut per noctem lucerna accendatur, aut per diem sol exeat, lumina illa sine causa patent; unde subdit quae illuminat omnem hominem. Si omnem hominem, ergo et ipsum Ioannem. Ipse ergo illuminabat, a quo se demonstrari volebat. Quomodo enim plerumque fit ut in aliquo corpore radiato cognoscatur ortus esse sol quem oculis videre non possumus; quia etiam qui saucios habet oculos, idonei sunt videre parietem illuminatum, aut aliquid huiusmodi; sic omnes ad quos venerat Christus, minus erant idonei eum videre. Radiavit Ioannem, et per illum confitentem se illuminatum cognitus est ille qui illuminat. Dicit autem venientem in hunc mundum, nam si illinc non recederet, non esset illuminandus; sed ideo hic illuminandus, quia illinc recessit ubi homo poterat esse illuminatus. AUG. Wherefore is there added, true? Because man enlightened is called light, but the true Light is that which lightens. For our eyes are called lights, and yet, without a lamp at night, or the sun by day, these lights are open to no purpose. Wherefore he adds: which lightens every man: but if every man, then John himself. He Himself then enlightened the person, by whom He wished Himself to be pointed out. And just as we may often, from the reflection of the sun’s rays on some object, know the sun to be risen, though we cannot fool; at the sun itself; as even feeble eyes can look at an illuminated wall, or some object of that kind: even so, those to whom Christ came, being too weak to behold Him, He threw His rays upon John; John confessed the illumination, and so the illuminator Himself was discovered. It is said, that comes into the world. Had man not departed from Him, he had not had to be enlightened; but therefore is he to be here enlightened, because he departed thence, when the might have been enlightened.
Theophylactus: Erubescat Manichaeus, qui conditoris maligni et tenebrosi nos asserit creaturas: non enim illuminaremur, si veri luminis creaturae non essemus. THEOPHYL. Let the Manichean blush, who pronounces us the creatures of a dark and malignant creator: for we should never be enlightened, v ere we not the children of the true Light.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ubi sunt etiam qui non dicunt eum verum Deum? Hic enim lux vera dicitur. Sed si illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, qualiter tot sine lumine permanserunt? Non enim omnes cognoverunt Christi culturam. Illuminat igitur omnem hominem quantum ad eum pertinet; si autem quidam mentis oculos claudentes noluerunt recipere lucis huius radios, non a lucis natura obtenebratio est eis, sed a malitia eorum, qui voluntarie privant seipsos gratiae dono: nam gratia quidem ad omnes effusa est; qui vero nolunt dono hoc frui, sibi ipsis hanc imputent caecitatem. CHRYS. Where are those too, who deny Him to be very God? We see here that He is called very Light. But if He lightens every man that comes into the world, how is it that so many have gone on without light? For all have not known the worship of Christ. The answer is: He only enlightens every man, so far as pertains to Him. If men shut their eyes, and will not receive the rays of this light, their darkness arises not from the fault of the light, but from their own wickedness, inasmuch as they voluntarily deprive themselves of the gift of grace. For grace is poured out upon all; and they, who will not enjoy the gift, may impute it to their own blindness.
Augustinus Enchir: Vel quod dicitur illuminat omnem hominem, sic intelligimus: non quia nullus est hominum qui non illuminetur; sed quia nisi ab ipso nullus illuminatur. AUG. Or the words, lightens every man, may be understood to mean, not that there is no one who is not enlightened, but that no one is enlightened except by Him.
Beda: Sive naturali ingenio, sive sapientia divina: sicut enim nemo a seipso esse, sic etiam nemo a seipso sapiens esse potest. BEDE; Including both natural and divine wisdom; for as no one can exist of himself, so no one can be wise of himself.
Origenes: Vel aliter. Non de his qui de occultis seminum causis in species corporales procedunt, debemus intelligere quod illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum; sed de his qui spiritualiter per regenerationem gratiae, quae datur in Baptismate, in mundum veniunt invisibilem. Eos itaque vera lux illuminat qui in mundum virtutum veniunt, non eos qui in mundum vitiorum ruunt. ORIGEN; Or thus: We must not understand the words, lightens every man that comes into the world, of the growth from hidden seeds to organized bodies, but of the entrance into the invisible world, by the spiritual regeneration and grace, which is given in Baptism. Those then the true Light lightens, who come into the world of goodness, not those who rush into the world of sin.
Theophylactus: Vel aliter. Intellectus nobis traditus, ac nos dirigens, qui et naturalis ratio nominatur, dicitur lux tradita nobis a Deo. Sed quidam male ratione utentes, seipsos obscuraverunt. THEOPHYL. Or thus: The intellect which is given in us for our direction, and which is called natural reason, is said here to be a light given us by God. But some by the ill use of their reason have darkened themselves.

Lectio 12
10 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Lux quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum, huc venit per carnem: quia dum hic esset per divinitatem, a stultis, caecis et iniquis videri non poterat, de quibus supra dictum est tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt: et ideo dicitur in mundo erat. AUG. The Light which lightens every man that comes into the world, came here in the flesh; because while He was here in His Divinity alone, the foolish, blind, and unrighteous could not discern Him; those of whom it is said above, The darkness comprehended it not. Hence the text; He was in the world.
Origenes: Ut enim qui loquitur, dum loqui cessat, vox eius esse desinit, et evanescit, sic caelestis pater, si verbum suum loqui cessaverit, effectus verbi, hoc est universitas verbo condita, non subsisteret.

Non autem putes quia sic erat in mundo quomodo in mundo est terra, pecora, et homines; sed quomodo artifex regens quod fecit; unde sequitur et mundus per ipsum factus est. Non enim sic fecit quomodo facit faber: qui enim fabricat, extrinsecus est ad illud quod fabricat. Deus autem infusus mundo, fabricat ubique positus, et non recedit ab aliquo: praesentia maiestatis facit quod facit, et gubernat quod facit. Sic ergo erat in mundo, quomodo per quem factus est mundus.

ORIGEN; For as, when a person leaves off speaking, his voice ceases to be, and vanishes; so if the Heavenly Father should cease to speak His Word, the effect of that Word, i.e. the universe which is created in the Word, shall cease to exist.

AUG. You must not suppose however, that He was in the world in tile same sense in w which the earth, cattle, men, are in the world; but in the sense in which an artificer controls his own work; whence the text, And the world was made by Him. Nor again did He make it after the manner of all artificer; for whereas an artificer is external to what he fabricates, God pervades the world, carrying on the work of creation in every part, and never absent from any part: by the presence of His Majesty He both makes and controls what is made. Thus He was in the world, as He by Whom the world w as made.

Chrysostomus: Et iterum, quia in mundo erat, sed non ut mundi contemporaneus, propter hoc induxit et mundus per ipsum factus est; per hoc et rursus te deducens ad aeternam existentiam unigeniti; qui enim audierit quoniam opus eius hoc totum, et si valde insensibilis fuerit, cogetur concedere ante opera esse factorem. CHRYS. And again, because He was in the world, but not coeval with the world, for this cause he introduced the words, and the world was made by Him: thus taking you back again to the eternal existence of the Only-Begotten. For when we are told that the whole of creation was made by Him, we must be very dull not to acknowledge that the Maker existed before the work.
Theophylactus: Simul autem hic et Manichaei subvertit rabiem, qui malignum conditorem cuncta produxisse dicebat; necnon et Arii, qui filium Dei dicebat creaturam. THEOPHYL. Here he overthrows at once the insane notion of the Manichaean, who says that the world is the work of a malignant creature, and the opinion of the Arian, that the Son of God is a creature.
Augustinus: Quid est autem mundus per ipsum factus est? Caelum, terra, mare et omnia quae in eis sunt, mundus dicitur. Iterum in alia significatione, dilectores mundi mundus dicuntur; de quo sequitur et mundus eum non cognovit. Num enim caeli, aut Angeli, aut sidera non cognoverunt creatorem, quem confitentur Daemonia, omnia undique testimonium perhibuerunt? Sed qui non cognoverunt eum? Qui amando mundum, dicti sunt mundus: amando enim mundum, habitamus corde in mundo: nam qui non diligunt mundum, carne versantur in mundo, sed corde inhabitant caelum; sicut apostolus dicit: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Amando igitur mundum, hoc appellari meruerunt ubi habitant. Quomodo enim cum dicimus: mala est illa domus aut bona, non parietes incusamus aut laudamus, sed inhabitantes, sic et mundum dicimus qui inhabitant mundum amando. AUG. But what means this, The world was made by Him? The earth, sky, and sea, and all that are therein, are called the world. But in another sense, the lovers of the world are called the world, of whom he says, And the world knew Him not. For did the sky, or Angels, not know their Creator, Whom the very devils confess, Whom the whole universe has borne witness to? Who then did not know Him? Those who, from their love of the world, are called the world; for such live in heart in the world, while those who do not love it, have their body in the world, but their heart in heaven; as said the Apostle, our conversation is in heaven. By their love of the world, such men merit being called by the name of the place where they live. And just as in speaking of a bad house, or good house, we do not mean praise or blame to the walls, but to the inhabitants; so when we talk of the world, we mean those who live there in the love of it.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Qui autem Dei erant amici, eum cognoverunt, etiam ante corporalem praesentiam: unde et Christus ait quoniam Abraham pater vester exultavit ut videret diem meum. Cum ergo nos interpellant gentiles, dicentes: quid est quod in ultimo tempore venit nostram operaturus salutem, tanto tempore negligens nos? Dicimus, quoniam et ante hoc in mundo erat, et providebat operibus suis, et omnibus dignis cognitus erat: et si eum mundus non cognovit, hi tamen quibus mundus non erat dignus, eum cognoverunt. Dicens autem mundus eum non cognovit, breviter causam ignorantiae praebuit. Mundum enim vocat homines qui soli mundo affixi sunt, et quae mundi sunt sapiunt. Nihil autem ita turbat mentem, ut liquefieri amore praesentium. CHRYS. But they who were the friends of God, knew Him even before His presence in the body; whence Christ said below, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day. When the Gentiles then interrupt us with the question, Why has He come in these last times to work our salvation, having neglected us so long? we reply, that He was in the world before, superintending what He had made, and was known to all who were worthy of Him; and that, if the world knew Him not, those of whom the world was not worthy knew Him. The reason follows, why the world knew Him not. The Evangelist calls those men the world, who are tied to the world, and savor of worldly things; for there is nothing that disturbs the mind so much, as this melting with the love of present things.

Lectio 13
11 εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον. 12 ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 13 οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.
11. He came to his own, and his own received him not. 12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the wild of man, but of God.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Dixit quod mundus eum non cognovit, de superioribus loquens temporibus; sed de reliquo sermonem induxit ad praedicationis tempora, et ait in propria venit. CHRYS. When He said that the world knew Him not, he c referred to the times of the old dispensation, but what follows H has reference to the time of his preaching; He came to his own.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quia scilicet omnia per ipsum facta sunt. AUG. Because all things were made by Him.
Theophylactus: Vel per propria mundum intelligas, sive Iudaeam, quam pro hereditate elegerat. THEOPHYL. By his own, understand either the world, or Judea, which He had chosen for His inheritance.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: In propria ergo venit, non gratia suae necessitatis, sed gratia beneficii suorum. Sed unde venit qui omnia implet, et ubique adest? Ea quidem quae ad nos condescensione hoc operatus est: quia enim in mundo existens, non putabatur adesse, eo quod nondum cognoscebatur, dignatus est induere carnem. Manifestationem vero hanc et condescensionem adventum vocat. Misericors autem existens Deus omnia facit, ut nos secundum virtutem splendeamus; et propter hoc quidem nullum necessitate, suasione vero et beneficiis volentes ad se attrahit; et propterea venientem eum hi quidem susceperunt, alii vero non receperunt. Nullum enim vult invitum neque coactum habere famulatum: invitum enim trahi, par est cum eo qui totaliter non servit; unde sequitur et sui eum non receperunt. In Ioannem. Iudaeos nunc suos dicit, ut populum peculiarem; sed et omnes homines ut ab ipso factos: et sicut superius pro communi verecundatus natura dicebat, quoniam mundus per ipsum factus conditorem non cognovit, ita et hic rursus pro Iudaeorum anxius indevotione gravius ponit accusationem, dicens et sui eum non receperunt. CHRYS. He came then to His own, not for His own good, but for the good of others. But whence did He Who fills all things, and is every where present, come? He came out of condescension to us, though in reality He had been in the world all along. But the world not seeing Him, because it knew Him not, He deigned to put on flesh. And this manifestation and condescension is called His advent. But the merciful God so contrives His dispensations, that we may shine forth in proportion to our goodness, and therefore He will not compel, but invites men, by persuasion and kindness, to come of their own accord: and so, when He came, some received Him, and others received Him not. He desires not an unwilling and forced service; for no one who comes unwillingly devotes himself wholly to Him. Whence what follows, And his own received him not. He here calls the Jews His own, as being his peculiar people; as indeed are all men in some sense, being made by Him. And as above, to the shame of our common nature, he said, that the world which was made by Him, knew not its Maker: so here again, indignant at the ingratitude of the Jews, he brings a heavier charge, viz. that His own received Him not.
Augustinus: Si autem omnino nullus recepit, nullus ergo salvus factus est. Nemo enim salvus fiet, nisi qui Christum receperit venientem; et ideo addit quotquot autem receperunt eum. AUG But if none at all received, none will be saved. For no one will be saved, but he who received Christ at His coming; and therefore he adds, As many as received Him.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sive sint servi sive liberi, sive Graeci sive barbari, sive insipientes sive sapientes, sive mulieres sive viri, sive pueri, sive senes, omnes eodem digni facti sunt honore, de quo sequitur dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. CHRYS. Whether they be bond or free, Greek or Barbarian, wise or unwise, women or men, the young or the aged, all are made meet for the honor, which the Evangelist now proceeds to mention. To them gave He power to become the sons of God.
Augustinus: Magna benevolentia. Unicus natus est, et noluit manere unus; non timuit habere coheredes, quia hereditas eius non fit angusta, si eam multi possederint. AUG. O amazing goodness! He was born the Only Son, yet would not remain so; but grudged not to admit joint heirs to His inheritance. Nor was this narrowed by many partaking of it.
Chrysostomus: Non autem dixit, quoniam fecit eos filios Dei fieri; sed dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri; ostendens quoniam multo opus est studio, ut eam, quae in Baptismo adoptionis formata est, imaginem incontaminatam semper custodiamus: simul autem ostendens quoniam potestatem hanc nullus nobis auferre poterit, nisi nos ipsi auferamus. Si enim qui ab hominibus dominium aliquarum rerum suscipiunt, tantum habent robur quantum fere hi qui dederunt; multo magis nos qui a Deo potimur hoc honore. Simul autem ostendere vult quoniam haec gratia advenit volentibus et studentibus: etenim in potestate est liberi arbitrii et gratiae operatione filios Dei fieri. CHRYS. He said not that He made them the sons of God, but gave them power to become the sons of God: showing that there is need of much care, to preserve the image, which is formed by our adoption in Baptism, untarnished: and showing at the same time also that no one can take this power from us, except we rob ourselves of it. Now, if the delegates of worldly governments have often nearly as much power as those governments themselves, much more is this the case with us, who derive our dignity from God. But at the same time the Evangelist wishes to show that this grace comes to us of our own will and endeavor: that, in short, the operation of grace being supposed, it is in the power of our free will to make us the sons of God.
Theophylactus: Vel quia in resurrectione filiationem perfectissimam consequemur, secundum quod apostolus dicit: adoptionem filiorum Dei expectantes redemptionem corporis nostri. Dedit ergo potestatem filios Dei fieri, idest hanc gratiam in futura gratia consequendi. THEOPHYL. Or the meaning is, that the most perfect sonship will only be attained at the resurrection, as said the Apostle, Wailing for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. He therefore gave us the power to become the sons of God, i.e. the power of obtaining this grace at some future time.
Chrysostomus: Et quia in his ipsis ineffabilibus bonis, hoc quidem est Dei, scilicet dare gratiam; illud vero hominis, idest praebere fidem, subiungit his qui credunt in nomine eius. Quid igitur non dicis nobis, o Ioannes, quod eorum sit supplicium qui eum non receperunt? Quia numquid isto supplicio fiet maius quando praeiacente eis potestate filios Dei fieri, non fiant, sed volentes seipsos tanto privant honore? Sed etiam inextinguibilis eos suscipiet ignis, quod postea manifestius revelabit. CHRYS. And because in the matter of these ineffable benefits, the giving of grace belongs to God, but the extending of faith to man, He subjoins, even to those who believe on his name. Why then declare you not, John, the punishment of those who received Him not? Is it because there is no greater punishment than that, when the power of becoming the sons of God is offered to men, they should not become such, but voluntarily deprive themselves of the dignity? But besides this, inextinguishable fire awaits all such, as will appear clearly farther on.
Augustinus: Credentes ergo quia filii Dei fiunt et fratres Christi, utique nascuntur; nam si non nascuntur, filii quomodo esse possunt? Sed filii hominum nascuntur ex carne et sanguine, et ex voluntate viri, et complexu coniugii. Illi autem quomodo nascuntur subdit qui non ex sanguinibus, tamquam maris et feminae. Sanguina vel sanguines non est Latinum; sed quia Graece positum est pluraliter, maluit ille qui interpretabatur, sic ponere, et quasi minus Latine loqui secundum grammaticos, et tamen explicare veritatem secundum auditum infirmorum. Ex sanguinibus enim maris et feminae homines nascuntur. AUG. To be made then the sons of God, and brothers of Christ, they must of course be born; for if they are not born, how can they be sons? Now the sons of men are born of flesh and blood, and the will of man, and the embrace of wedlock; but how these are born, the next words declare: Not of bloods; that is, the male’s and the female’s. Bloods is not correct Latin, but as it is plural in the Greek, the translator preferred to put it so, though it be not strictly grammatical, at the same time explaining the word in order not to offend the weakness of one’s hearers.
Beda: Sciendum etiam est, quia in Scripturis sanctis sanguis, cum dicitur pluraliter, peccatum significare solet; unde: libera me de sanguinibus. BEDE; It should be understood that in holy Scripture, blood in the plural number, has the signification of sin: thus in the Psalms, Deliver me from blood-guiltiness.
Augustinus in Ioannem: In eo autem quod sequitur neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, carnem pro femina posuit: quia de costa facta cum esset, Adam dixit: hoc nunc os de ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Ponitur ergo caro pro uxore quomodo aliquando spiritus pro marito: quia ille imperare debet, ista servire. Quid enim peius est domo ubi femina habet imperium super virum? Hi ergo neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. AUG. In that which follows, Nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, the flesh is put for the female; because, when she was made out of the rib, Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The flesh therefore is put for the wife, as the spirit sometimes is for the husband; because that the one ought to govern, the other to obey. For what is there worse than a house, where the woman has rule over the man? But these that we speak of are born neither of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.
Beda: Carnalis enim singulorum generatio a complexu coniugii duxit originem: at vero spiritualis spiritus sancti gratia ministratur. BEDE; The carnal birth of men derives its origin from the embrace of wedlock, but the spiritual is dispensed by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Chrysostomus: Hoc autem narrat Evangelista, ut vilitatem et humilitatem prioris partus, qui est per sanguinem et voluntatem carnis, addiscentes, et altitudinem secundi, qui per gratiam et nobilitatem est, cognoscentes, magnam quamdam hic suscipiamus intelligentiam et dignam dono ipsius qui genuit, et multum post hoc studium demonstremus. CHRYS. The Evangelist makes this declaration, that being taught the vileness and inferiority of our former birth, which is through blood, and the will of the flesh, and understanding the loftiness and nobleness of the second, which is through grace, we might hence receive great knowledge, worthy of being bestowed by him who begat us, and after this show forth much zeal.

Lectio 14
14 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν,
14a. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Cum dixisset ex Deo nati sunt, quasi ne miraremur et horreremus tantam gratiam, et nobis incredibile videretur, quia homines ex Deo nati sunt; quasi securitatem faciens, ait et verbum caro factum est. Quid ergo miraris quia homines ex Deo nascuntur? Attende ipsum Deum ex hominibus natum. AUG. Having said, Born of God; to prevent surprise and trepidation at so great, so apparently incredible a grace, that men should be born of God; to assure us, he says, And the Word was as made flesh. Why marvel you then that men are born of God? Know that God Himself was born of man.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Cum dixisset quoniam ex Deo nati sunt qui susceperunt eum, huius honoris posuit causam, hoc scilicet verbum fieri carnem: factus est enim proprius filius Dei hominis filius, ut filius hominum faciat filios Dei. Cum autem audieris quoniam verbum caro factum est, ne turberis: neque enim substantiam convertit in carnem; hoc enim vere impium est intelligere; sed manens quod est, servi formam assumpsit. Quia enim sunt qui dicunt, quoniam phantasmata quaedam fuerint omnia quae incarnationis sunt; eorum blasphemiam destruens, hanc dictionem factum est posuit, non transmutationem substantiae, sed carnis verae assumptionem repraesentare volens. Si vero dixerint: quoniam Deus omnipotens est, quare et in carnem transmutari non potuit? Dicemus quod transmutari ab illa incommutabili natura omnino procul est. CHRYS. Or thus, After saying that they were born of God, who received Him, he sets forth the cause of this honor, viz. the Word being made flesh, God’s own Son was made the son of man, that he might make the sons of men the sons of God. Now when you hear that the Word was made flesh, be not disturbed, for He did not change His substance into flesh, which it were indeed impious to suppose; but remaining what He was, took upon Him the form of a servant. But as there are some who say, that the whole of the incarnation was only in appearance, to refute such a blasphemy, he used the expression, was made, meaning to represent not a conversion of substance, but an assumption of real flesh. But if they say, God is omnipotent; why then could He not be changed into flesh? we reply, that a change from an unchangeable nature is a contradiction.
Augustinus de Trin: Sicut autem verbum nostrum vox quodammodo corporis fit assumendo eam in qua manifestatur sensibus hominum, sic verbum Dei caro factum est, assumendo eam in qua et ipsum manifestaretur sensibus hominum. Et sicut verbum nostrum fit vox, nec mutatur in vocem, ita verbum Dei caro quidem factum est; sed absit ut mutaretur in carnem: assumendo quippe illam, non in eam se consumendo, et hoc nostrum vox fit, et illud caro factum est. AUG. As our word becomes the bodily voice, by its assumption of that voice, as a means of developing itself externally, so the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming flesh, as a means of manifesting Itself to the world. And as our word is made voice, yet is not turned into voice; so the Word of God was made flesh, but never turned into flesh. It is by assuming another nature, not by consuming themselves in it, that our word is made voice, and the Word, flesh.
Ex gestis Concilii Ephesini: Sermo etiam quem proferimus, quo in alterutris locutionibus utimur, sermo est incorporeus, non aspectui subiectus, non tactu tractabilis; sed cum sermo induerit litteras et elementa, visibilis fit, aspectu comprehenditur, tactu tractatur, sic et verbum Dei, quod naturaliter invisibile est, visibile fit; et quod natura incorporeum est, invenitur esse tractabile. EX GESTIS CONC. EPH. The discourse which we utter, which we use in conversation with each other, is incorporeal, imperceptible, impalpable; but clothed in letters and characters, it becomes material, perceptible, tangible. So too the Word of God, which was naturally invisible, becomes visible, and that comes before us in tangible form, which was by nature incorporeal.
Alcuinus: Cum etiam credamus animam incorpoream corpori coniungi, ut ex his duobus fiat unus homo, facilius possumus credere divinam substantiam incorpoream animae in corpore coniungi in unionem personae; ita ut verbum in carnem non sit conversum, nec caro in verbum; cum nec corpus in animam, nec anima convertatur in corpus. ALCUIN. When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul.
Theophylactus: Apollinarius autem Laodicensis in hoc verbo haeresim statuit: dicebat enim, quod Christus animam rationalem non habuit sed tantum carnem; habens divinitatem pro anima, quae corpus dirigit et gubernat. THEOPHYL. Apollinarius of Laodicea raised a heresy upon this text; saying, that Christ had flesh only, not a rational soul; in the place of which His divinity directed and controlled His body.
Augustinus contra Serm. Arian: Si autem moventur in eo quod scriptum est, quod verbum caro factum est, nec ibi anima nominatur; intelligant carnem pro homine positam, a parte totum, figuratae locutionis modo, sicuti est: ad te omnis caro veniet; item quod ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro; quod apertius alio loco dicitur: non iustificabitur homo ex operibus legis. Sic itaque dictum est verbum caro factum est; ac si diceret: verbum homo factum est. AUG. If men are disturbed however by its being said that the Word was made flesh, without mention of a soul; let them know that the flesh is put for the whole man, the part for the whole, by a figure of speech; as in the Psalms, Unto you shall all flesh come; and again in Romans, By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. In the same sense it is said here that the Word was made flesh; meaning that the Word was made man.
Theophylactus: Evangelista volens ostendere inenarrabilem Dei condescensum, carnem commemorat, ut illius admiremur misericordiam, quoniam propter nostram salutem quod omnino remotum et distans est ab eius natura, assumpsit, scilicet carnem; anima namque habet aliquam propinquitatem ad Deum. Si autem verbum incarnatum est, et humanam animam non assumpsit; sequeretur quod adhuc animae nostrae curatae non essent: quod enim non assumpsit, non sanctificavit. Et qualis derisio, cum anima prius peccaverit, ut carnem assumendo sanctificaverit, id quod est principalius infirmum reliquerit? Subvertitur ex hoc dicto Nestorius, qui dicebat quod non Deus verbum ipse idem factus est homo ex sacro conceptus sanguine virginis; sed virgo peperit hominem qui omnis virtutis dotatus erat specie, et Dei verbum illi erat coniunctum: et ex hoc duos filios asserebat: unum natum de virgine, scilicet hominem; alterum de Deo, scilicet Dei filium, homini illi coniunctum secundum gratiae habitudinem et amorem. Contra quem Evangelista dixit, quod ipsum verbum factum est homo, non quod verbum inveniens hominem virtuosum, se sibi coniunxerit. THEOPHYL. The Evangelist intends by making mention of the flesh, to show the unspeakable condescension of God, and lead us to admire His compassion, in assuming for our salvation, what was so opposite and incongenial to His nature, as the flesh: for the soul has some propinquity to God. If the Word, however, was made flesh, and assumed not at the same time a human soul, our souls, it would follow, would not be yet restored: for what He did not assume, He could not sanctify. What a mockery then, when the soul first sinned, to assume and sanctify the flesh only, leaving the weakest part untouched! This text overthrows Nestorius, who asserted that it was not the very Word, even God, Who the Self-same was made man, being conceived of the sacred blood of the Virgin: but that the Virgin brought forth a man endowed with every kind of virtue, and that the Word of God was united to him: thus making out two sons, one born of the Virgin, i.e. man, the other born of God, that is, the Son of God, united to that man by grace, and relation, and love. In opposition to him the Evangelist declares, that the very Word was made Man, not that the Word fixing upon a righteous man united Himself to him.
Cyrillus ad Nestorium: Carnem enim animatam anima rationali uniens verbum sibi secundum subsistentiam, ineffabiliter et inintelligibiliter factus est homo, et appellatus est filius hominis, non secundum voluntatem solam aut beneplacitum, sed neque in assumptione personae solius. Diversae quidem quoad unionem collatae naturae; unus autem ex ambabus Christus et filius; non quasi differentia naturarum interempta propter adunationem. CYRIL; The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Who is of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition.
Theophylactus: Addiscimus ergo per hoc quod dicitur verbum caro factum est, quia ipsum verbum est homo, et filius Dei existens factus est filius mulieris; quae principaliter Dei genitrix nuncupatur, tamquam Deum in carne genuerit. THEOPHYL. From the text, The Word was made flesh, we learn this farther, that the Word Itself is man, and being the Son of God was made the Son of a woman, who is rightly called the Mother of God, as having given birth to God in the flesh.
Hilarius de Trin: Quidam autem volentes unigenitum Deum, qui in principio apud Deum erat Deus verbum, non substantivum Deum esse, sed sermonem vocis emissae, ut quod loquentibus verbum suum, hoc sit patri Deo filius, argute subrepere volunt, ne subsistens verbum Deus, et manens in forma Dei Christus homo natus sit: ut cum hominem illum humanae potius originis causa quam spiritualis conceptionis sacramentum animaverit, non Deus verbum hominem se ex partu virginis efficiens extiterit; sed, ut in prophetis spiritus prophetiae, ita in Iesu verbum Dei fuerit. Et arguere nos solent, quod Christum dicamus esse natum non nostri corporis atque animae hominem, cum nos verbum carnem factum, nostrae similitudinis natum hominem praedicemus, ut vere Dei filius vere filius hominis natus sit; et ut per se sibi assumpsit ex virgine corpus, ita ex se sibi animam assumpsit; quae utique ab homine numquam gignentium originibus praebetur: et cum ipse ille filius hominis sit, quam ridicule praeter Dei filium, qui verbum caro factum est, alium nescio quem tamquam prophetam verbo Dei animatum praedicabimus, cum dominus Iesus Christus et Dei filius et hominis filius sit? HILARY; Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilely, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, not of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.
Chrysostomus: Ne autem ab eo quod dictum est verbum caro factum est, inconvenienter suspiceris versionem illius incorruptibilis naturae, subdit et habitavit in nobis. Quod enim habitat, non idem est cum habitaculo, sed aliud: aliud autem dico secundum naturam: unione vero et copulatione unum est Deus verbum caro, neque confusione facta, neque destructione substantiarum. CHRYS. Lest from it being said, however, that the Word was made flesh, you should infer improperly a change of His incorruptible nature, he subjoins, And dwelt among us. For that which inhabits is not the same, but different from the habitation: different, I say, in nature; though as to union and conjunction, God the Word and the flesh are one, without confusion or extinction of substance.
Alcuinus: Vel habitavit in nobis, idest inter homines conversatus est. ALCUIN; Or, dwelt among us, means, lived amongst men.

Lectio 15
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
14b. And we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Cum dixisset, quod filii Dei facti sumus, et non aliter quam per hoc quod verbum caro factum est; rursus ipsius dicit et aliud lucrum et vidimus gloriam eius: quam utique non vidissemus, nisi per consortium humanitatis visus esset nobis. Si enim Moysi non sustinuerunt faciem glorificatam videre, sed velamine opus fuit; qualiter divinitatem nudam existentem, inaccessibilem etiam ipsis superioribus virtutibus, nos lutei et terrestres sufferre possemus? CHRYS. Having said that we are made the sons of God and in no other way than because the Word was made flesh; he mentions another gift, And we saw His glory. Which glory we should not have seen, had He not, by His alliance with humanity, become visible to us. For if they could not endure to look on the glorified face of Moses, but there was need of a veil, how could soiled and earthly creatures, like ourselves, have borne the sight of undisguised Divinity, which is not vouchsafed even to the higher powers themselves.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis, ista nativitate collyrium fecit, unde tergerentur oculi nostri, ut possimus videre maiestatem eius per eius humanitatem; et ideo dicitur et vidimus gloriam eius. Gloriam eius nemo posset videre, nisi humilitate carnis sanaretur. Irruerat enim homini quasi pulvis in oculum de terra: oculus iste sauciatus erat, et terra illuc mittitur ut sanetur: caro te obcaecaverat, caro te sanat. Carnalis enim anima facta erat, consentiendo carnalibus affectibus; inde fuerat oculus cordis caecatus: medicus fecit tibi collyrium, quoniam sic venit ut de carne vitia carnis extingueret. Verbum enim caro factum est, ut possis dicere vidimus gloriam eius. AUG. Or thus; in that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, His birth became a kind of ointment to anoint the eyes of our heart, that we might through His humanity discern His majesty; and therefore it follows, And we saw His glory. No one could see His glory, who was not healed by the humility of the flesh. For there had flown upon man’s eye as it were dust from the earth: the eye had been diseased, and earth was sent to heal it again; the flesh had blinded you, the flesh restores you. The soul by consenting to carnal affections had become carnal; hence the eye of the mind had been blinded: then the physician made for thee ointment. He came in such wise, as that by the flesh He destroyed the corruption of the flesh. And thus the Word was made flesh, that you might be able to say, We saw His glory.
Chrysostomus: Subdit autem, quasi unigeniti a patre: quia multi prophetarum glorificati sunt, puta Moyses, Eliseus et alii multi quicumque miracula ostenderunt; sed et Angeli hominibus apparentes, et eam quae est propriae naturae coruscantem lucem manifestantes, sed et Cherubim et Seraphim cum multa gloria visa sunt a propheta. Ab omnibus his nos abducens Evangelista, et supra omnem naturam et conservorum nostrorum claritatem erigens mentem, ad ipsum nos perducit verticem; quasi dicat: non ut prophetae aut alterius hominis, vel Angeli, aut Archangeli, aut alicuius superiorum virtutum, est gloria quam vidimus; sed quasi ipsius regis, ipsius naturalis filii unigeniti. CHRYS. He subjoins, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father: for many prophets, as Moses, Elijah, and others, workers of miracles, had been glorified, and Angels also who appeared to men, shining with the brightness belonging to their nature; Cherubim and Seraphim too, who were seen in glorious array by the prophets. But the Evangelist withdrawing our minds from these, and raising them above all nature, and every preeminence of fellow servants, leads us up to the summit Himself; as if he said, Not of prophet, or of any other man, or of Angel, or Archangel, or any of the higher powers, is the glory which we beheld; but as that of the very Lord, very King, very and true Only-Begotten Son.
Gregorius Moralium: In sacro enim eloquio sicut et quasi aliquando non pro similitudine ponitur, sed pro veritate; unde et istud, quasi unigeniti a patre. GREG. In Scripture language as, and as it were, are sometimes put not for likeness but reality; whence the expression, As of the Only-Begotten of the Father.
Chrysostomus: Ac si diceret: vidimus gloriam qualem decebat, et conveniens est habere unigenitum et naturalem filium. Consuetudo enim multorum, regem valde ornatum videntium, est ut cum aliis enarrantes non possunt universalem repraesentare claritatem, hoc inducunt: quid oportet multa dicere? Quasi rex ibat. Sic et Ioannes dicit vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. Angeli enim apparentes ut servi, et dominum habentes, omnia agebant; ipse vero ut dominus cum humili forma apparens. Sed et creaturae dominum cognoverunt, stella magos vocans, Angeli pastores, puer exultans in utero: sed et pater testatus est de caelis, et Paraclytus super ipsum advenit; sed et ipsa rerum natura omni tuba clarius clamavit, quoniam rex caelorum advenerat: etenim Daemones fugiebant, infirmitatis species solvebantur, mortuos dimittebant sepulchra, et animas a malitia ad virtutis verticem agebat. Quid utique quis dicat praeceptorum philosophiam, caelestium legum virtutem, angelicae urbanitatis bonam ordinationem? CHRYS. As if he said: We saw His glory, such as it was becoming and proper for the Only-Begotten and true Son to have. We have a form of speech, like it, derived from our seeing kings always splendidly robed. When the dignity of a man’s carriage is beyond description, we say, In short, he went as a king. So too John says, We saw His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. For Angels, when they appeared, did every thing as servants who had a Lord, but He as the Lord appearing in humble form. Yet did all creatures recognize their Lord, the star calling the Magi, the Angels the shepherds, the child leaping in the womb acknowledged Him: yes the Father bore witness to Him from heaven, and the Paraclete descending upon Him: and the very universe itself shouted louder than any trumpet, that the King of heaven had come. For devils fled, diseases were healed, the graves gave up the dead, and souls were brought out of wickedness, to the utmost height of virtue. What shall one say of the wisdom of precepts, of the virtue of heavenly laws, of the excellent institution of the angelical life?
Origenes: Eius autem quod sequitur, plenum gratiae et veritatis, duplex intellectus est. Potest enim de humanitate ac divinitate incarnati verbi accipi; ita ut plenitudo gratiae referatur ad humanitatem, secundum quam Christus caput est Ecclesiae et primogenitus creaturae universae: quoniam maximum et principale gratiae exemplum, qua nullis praecedentibus meritis homo efficitur Deus, in ipso primordialiter manifestatum est. Potest etiam plenitudo gratiae Christi de spiritu sancto intelligi, cuius septiformis operatio humanitatem Christi implevit. Plenitudo vero veritatis ad divinitatem refertur. ORIGEN; Full of grace and truth. Of this the meaning is twofold. For it may be understood of the Humanity, and the Divinity of the Incarnate Word, so that the fullness of grace has reference to the Humanity, according to which Christ is the Head of the Church, and the first-born of every creature: for the greatest and original example of grace, by which man, with no preceding merits, is made God, is manifested primarily in Him. The fullness of the grace of Christ may also be understood of the Holy Spirit, whose sevenfold operation filled Christ’s Humanity. The fullness of truth applies to the Divinity
Origenes in Ioannem: Si vero plenitudinem gratiae et veritatis de novo testamento mavis intelligere, non incongrue pronuntiabis plenitudinem gratiae novi testamenti esse per Christum donatam, et legalium symbolorum veritatem in ipso esse impletam. .But if you had rather understand the fullness of grace and truth of the New Testament, you may with propriety pronounce the fullness of the grace of the New Testament to be given by Christ, and the truth of the legal types to have been fulfilled in Him.
Theophylactus: Vel plenum gratia, prout eius verbum gratiosum erat, dicente David: diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis; et veritate, secundum quod Moyses et prophetae loquebantur aut operabantur in figura, Christus autem cum veritate. THEOPHYL. Or, full of grace, inasmuch as His word w as gracious, as said David, Full of grace are your lips; and truth, because what Moses and the Prophets spoke or did in figure, Christ did in reality.

Lectio 16
15 Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων, οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον, ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν.
15. John bore witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.

Alcuinus: Dixerat superius fuisse missum hominem ad perhibendum testimonium; hic determinat testimonium suum, quod manifeste praecursor pronuntiavit; unde dicitur Ioannes perhibet testimonium de ipso. ALCUIN; He had said before that there was a man sent to bear witness; now he gives definitely the forerunner’s own testimony, which plainly declared the excellence of His Human Nature and the Eternity of His Godhead. John bore witness of Him.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter hoc inducit; ac si dicat: non aestimetis quod nos qui fuimus cum eo multo tempore et mensae ipsius communicavimus, propter gratiam hoc testemur; quia Ioannes, qui antea eum non viderat, nec ei commoratus fuerat, ei testimonium perhibebat. Multoties autem Evangelista revolvit eius testimonium, quia multam admirationem huius viri habebant Iudaei. Et alii quidem Evangelistae antiquorum meminerunt prophetarum, dicentes: hoc factum est ut impleatur quod dictum est per prophetam; hic autem altiorem et recentiorem testem inducit, non intendens a servo dominatorem facere fide dignum, sed auditorum imbecillitati condescendens. Quemadmodum enim nisi servi formam assumpsisset, non ita facile susceptibilis factus esset; ita nisi servi voce auditum conservorum praeexcitasset, nequaquam multi Iudaeorum verbum Christi suscepissent. Sequitur et clamat; idest, cum propalatione, cum libertate, sine subtractione omnia praedicat. Non autem a principio dixit, quoniam hic est filius Dei unigenitus naturalis; sed clamat dicens hic erat quem dixi: qui post me venit, ante me factus est, quia prior me erat. Quemadmodum enim matres avium, non confestim pullos suos volationem docent; sed primo quidem extra nidum educunt, postea vero aliam multo velociorem volationem apponunt; sic et Ioannes non confestim Iudaeos ad alta duxit, sed interim paululum a terra eos evolare docuit, dicens, quod Christus melior eo erat; quod non parum interim erat. Et vide qualiter sapienter inducit testimonium: non enim solum apparentem Christum monstrat; sed et antequam apparuisset eum praedicat; quod significatur in hoc quod dicit hic erat de quo dixi. Hoc autem fecit ut facile susceptibilis esset Christus, hominum mente iam praedetenta ab aliis quae de eo dicta erant, et nihil ad hoc humilitas habitus noceret. Ita enim humili et communi omnibus forma Christus utebatur, ut si simul et verba haec audissent de eo, et eum considerassent, Ioannis testimonium derisissent. CHRYS. Or he introduces this, as if to say, Do not suppose that we bear witness to this out of gratitude, because we were with Him a long time, and partook of His table; for John who had never seen Him before, nor tarried with Him, bore witness to Him. The Evangelist repeats John’s testimony many times here and there, because he was held in such admiration by the Jews. Other Evangelists refer to the old prophets, and say, This was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. But he introduces a loftier, and later witness, not intending to make the servant vouch for the master, but only condescending to the weakness of his hearers. For as Christ would not have been so readily received, had He not taken upon Him the form of a servant; so if he had not excited the attention of servants by the voice of a fellow-servant beforehand, there would not have been many Jews embracing the word of Christ. It follows, And cried; that is, preached with openness, with freedom, without reservation. He did not however begin with asserting that this one was the natural only-begotten Son of God, but cried, saying, This was He of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me. For as birds do not teach their young all at once to fly, but first draw them outside the nest, and afterwards try them with a quicker motion; so John did not immediately lead the Jews to high things, but began with lesser flights, saying, that Christ was better than he; which in the mean time was no little advance. And observe how prudently he introduces his testimony; he not only points to Christ when He appears, but preaches Him beforehand; as, This is He of whom I spoke. This would prepare men’s minds for Christ’s coming: so that when He did come, the humility of His garb would be no impediment to His being received. For Christ adopted so humble and common an appearance, that if men had seen Him without first healing John’s testimony to His greatness, none of the things spoken of Him would have had any effect.
Theophylactus: Dicit autem qui post me venit, videlicet secundum tempora nativitatis: sex enim mensibus prior Christo Ioannes erat secundum humanitatem. THEOPHYL. He said, Who comes after me, that is, as to the time of His birth. John was six months before Christ, according to His humanity.
Chrysostomus: Vel hoc non dicit de ea generatione quae est ex Maria: iam enim natus erat Christus quando haec a Ioanne dicebantur; sed de adventu eius ad praedicationem. Dicit autem ante me factus est; idest, clarior est et honorabilior; ac si dicat: non quia prior veni ad praedicandum, ex hoc maiorem me esse illo existimetis. CHRYS. Or this does not refer to the birth from Mary; for Christ was born, when this was said by John; but to His coming for the work of preaching. He then said, is made before me; that is, is more illustrious, more honorable; as if he said, Do not suppose me greater than He, because I came first to preach.
Theophylactus: Ariani vero hanc litteram sic exponunt, volentes ostendere quod Dei filius non est a patre genitus, sed factus, sicut una alia creatura. THEOPHYL. The Arians infer from this Word, that the Son of God is not begotten of the Father, but made like any other creature.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Non ergo intelligitur: factus est antequam ego essem factus; sed antepositus est mihi. AUG. It does not mean - He was made before I was made, but He is preferred to me.
Chrysostomus: Si autem quod dicitur ante me factus est, de productione ad esse intelligeretur, superfluum esset quod additur quia prior me erat. Quis enim est ita insipiens ut ignoret quoniam ex quo ante eum factus est, prior eo erat? Aliter autem e contrario oporteret dicere, scilicet: prior me erat, quia ante me factus est. Ergo quod dicit ante me factus est, de honore intelligitur: hoc enim quod futurum erat, factum dicit, quia consuetudo erat antiquorum prophetarum de futuris quasi de iam praeteritis loqui. CHRYS. If the words, made before me, referred to His coming into being, it was superfluous to add, For He was before me. For who would be so foolish as not to know, that if He was made before him, He was before him. It would have been more correct to say, He was before me, because He was made before me. The expression then, He was made before me, must be taken in the sense of honor: only that which was to take place, he speaks of as having taken place already, after the style of the old Prophets, who commonly talk of the future as the past.

Lectio 17
16 ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος: 17 ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
16. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Origenes: Sermo iste in persona Baptistae de Christo testantis prolatus est; quod plurimos fallit, ex hic usque illuc ille enarravit, credentes in persona Ioannis apostoli recitari, inconsequens autem est putare, subito et quasi intempestive interrumpi Baptistae sermonem ex verbo discipuli; et cuique scienti percipere dictorum collationem, in propatulo constat series dicti; dixerat enim ob hoc ante me factus est, qui prior me erat. Ex hoc autem coniecto priorem me fore, quod ex eius plenitudine ego quidem, et ante me prophetae accepimus gratiam secundam pro prima. Pertigerunt enim et illi post figuras per spiritum ad veritatis speculationem. Hinc etiam perpendimus ex plenitudine eius accipientes, legem quidem per Moysen fore datam, gratiam autem et veritatem per Iesum Christum, nedum fore datam, sed factam; patre quidem legem dante per Moysen, gratiam et veritatem faciente per Iesum. Sed si Iesus est qui dicit: ego sum veritas, quomodo veritas fit per Iesum? Sed intelligendum est, quod ipsa veritas substantialis (ex qua prima veritate et eius imagine sculptae sunt multae veritates in his qui veritatem tractant) nequaquam per Iesum Christum facta est, nec prorsus per aliquem; sed veritas, puta quae consistit in Paulo et apostolis, per Iesum Christum facta est. ORIGEN; This is to be considered a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony to Christ, a point which has escaped the attention of many, who think that from this to, He has declared Him, St. John the Apostle is speaking. But the idea that on a sudden, and, as it would seem, unseasonably, the discourse of the Baptist should be interrupted by a speech of the disciple’s, is inadmissible. And any one, able to follow the passage, will discern a very obvious connection here. For having said, He is preferred before me, for He was before me, he proceeds, From this I know that He is before me, because I and the Prophets who preceded me have received of His fullness, and grace for grace, (the second grace for the first.) For they too by the Spirit penetrated beyond the figure to the contemplation of the truth. And hence receiving, as we have done, of his fullness, we judge that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth were made, by Jesus Christ - made, not given: the Father gave the law by Moses, but made grace and truth by Jesus. But if it is Jesus who says below, I am the Truth, how is truth made by Jesus? We must understand however that the very substantial Truth, from which First Truth and Its Image many truths are engraver on those who treat of the truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, or through any one; but only the truth which is in individuals, such as in Paul, e.g. or the other Apostles, was made through Jesus Christ.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Coniungit hic testimonio Ioannis Baptistae suum testimonium Ioannes Evangelista, dicens et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Non praecursoris est verbum, sed discipuli; quasi dicat: etiam nos omnes duodecim, et omnis plenitudo fidelium, et qui nunc sunt, et futurorum, de plenitudine eius accepimus. CHRYS. Or thus; John the Evangelist here adds this testimony to that of John the Baptist, saying, And of his fullness have we all received. These are not the words of the forerunner, but of the disciple; as if he meant to say, We also the twelve, and the whole body of the faithful, both present and to come, have received of His fullness.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quid autem accepistis? Et gratiam pro gratia: ut nescio quid nos voluerit intelligere de plenitudine eius accepisse, et insuper gratiam pro gratia: accepimus enim de plenitudine eius primo gratiam, et rursus accepimus gratiam pro gratia. Quam gratiam primo accepimus? Fidem. Vocatur enim gratia, quia gratis datur. Hanc ergo accepit gratiam primam peccator, ut eius peccata dimitterentur; et iterum gratiam pro gratia; idest, pro hac gratia in qua ex fide vivimus, recepturi sumus aliam, idest vitam aeternam: vita enim aeterna quasi merces est fidei: sed quia ipsa fides gratia est, vita aeterna gratia est pro gratia. Non erat ista gratia in veteri testamento: quia lex minabatur, non opitulabatur; iubebat, non sanabat: languorem ostendebat, non auferebat, sed praeparabat medico venturo cum gratia et veritate; unde sequitur quia lex per Moysen data est; gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Mortem enim temporalem et aeternam occidit mors domini tui: ipsa est gratia quae promissa et non habita erat in lege. AUG. But whet have you received? Grace for grace. So that we are to understand that we have received a certain something from His fullness, and over and above this, grace for grace; that we have first received of His fullness, first grace; and again, we have received grace for grace. What grace did we first receive; Faith: which is called grace, because it is given freely. This is the first grace then which the sinner receives, the remission of his sins. Again, we have grace for grace; i.e. instead of that grace in which we live by faith, we are to receive another, viz. life eternal: for life eternal is as it were the wages of faith. And thus as faith itself is a good grace, so life eternal is grace for grace. There was not grace in the Old Testament; for the law threatened, but assisted not, commanded, but healed not, showed our weakness, but relieved it not. It prepared the way however for a Physician who was about to come, with the gifts of grace and truth: whence the sentence which follows: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. The death of your Lord has destroyed death, both temporal and eternal; that is the grace which was promised, but not contained, in the law.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel accepimus gratiam pro gratia; idest, pro veteri novam. Sicut enim est iustitia et iustitia, adoptio et adoptio, circumcisio et circumcisio, ita gratia et gratia; sed illa quidem ut typus, haec vero ut veritas. Hoc autem induxit, ostendens quoniam et Iudaei gratia salvabantur, sed et nos omnes gratia salvi sumus: misericordiae autem et gratiae fuit legem suscipere. Propterea cum dixisset gratiam pro gratia, ostendens magnitudinem eorum quae data sunt, subdit quia lex per Moysen data est, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Et supra quidem Ioannes ad seipsum comparans Christum, ait ante me factus est: hic autem Evangelista ad eum qui illo tempore magis in admiratione apud Iudaeos erat quam Ioannes, Christi comparationem facit, scilicet ad Moysen. Et considera prudentiam. Non personarum, sed rerum comparationem facit, gratiam et veritatem legi opponens; et huic addit data est, quod ministrantis erat; huic autem facta est, quod est regis cum potestate omnia operantis: cum gratia quidem, quia cum potestate omnia dimittebat peccata. Et gratiam quidem eius Baptismatis donum, et adoptio quae per spiritum nobis datur, et alia multa ostendunt: veritatem autem plenius sciemus si figuras veteris legis didicerimus: ea enim quae in novo testamento perficienda erant, in veteri testamento figurae praescripserunt, quas Christus veniens adimplevit. Unde figura data est per Moysen, veritas per Christum facta est. CHRYS. Or we have received grace for grace; that is, the new in the place of the old. For as there is a justice and a justice besides, an adoption and another adoption, a circumcision and another circumcision; so is there a grace and another grace; only the one being a type, the other a reality. He brings in the words to show that the Jews as well as ourselves are saved by grace: it being of mercy and grace that they received the law. Next, after he has said, Grace for grace, he adds something to show the magnitude of the gift; For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. John when comparing himself with Christ above had said, He is preferred before me: but the Evangelist draws a comparison between Christ, and one much more in admiration with the Jews than John, viz. Moses. And observe his wisdom. He does not draw the comparison. between the persons, but the things, contrasting grace and truth to the law: the latter of which he says was given, a word only applying to an administrator; the former made, as we should speak of a king, who does every thing by his power: though in this King it would be with grace also, because that with power He remitted all sins. Now His grace is shown in His gift of Baptism, and our adoption by the Holy Spirit, and many other things; but to have a better insight into what the truth is, we should study the figures of the old law: for what was to be accomplished in the New Testament, is prefigured in the Old, Christ at His Coming filling up the figure. Thus was the figure given by Moses, but the truth made by Christ.
Augustinus de Trin: Vel gratiam referamus ad scientiam, veritatem ad sapientiam: in rebus enim per tempus ortis illa summa gratia est, quod homo in unitate personae coniunctus est Deo: in rebus vero aeternis summa veritas recte tribuitur Dei verbo. AUG. Or, we may refer grace to knowledge, truth to wisdom. Amongst the events of time the highest grace is the uniting of man to God in One Person; in the eternal world the highest truth pertains to God the Word.

Lectio 18
18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
18. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Origenes in Ioannem: Incongrue Heracleon asserit hoc promulgatum fuisse non a Baptista, sed a discipulo: nam si illud de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, a Baptista prolatum est, quomodo non est sequens, ipsum de gratia Christi suscipientem, et secundam pro prima gratia, confitentemque, legem per Moysen fore traditam, gratiam vero et veritatem per Iesum Christum prodiisse; intellexisse qualiter Deum nemo vidit unquam, quodque unigenitus, cum in patris gremio requiescat, interpretationem ipsi Ioanni, nec non omnibus his qui de perfectione gustaverint, concesserit? Non enim nunc primitus annuntiavit: nam priusquam Abraham fieret, docet nos Abraham exultasse, ut videret eius gloriam. ORIGEN; Heracleon asserts, that this is a declaration of the disciple, not of the Baptist: an unreasonable supposition; for if the words, Of His fullness have we all received, are the Baptist’s, does not the connection run naturally, that he receiving of the grace of Christ, the second in the place of the first grace, and confessing that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ; understood here that no man had seen God at any time, and that the Only Begotten, who was in the bosom of the Father, had committed this declaration of Himself to John, and all who with him had received of His fullness? For John was not the first who declared Him; for He Himself who was before Abraham, tells us, that Abraham rejoiced to see His glory.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Evangelista ostendens multam eminentiam donorum Christi ad ea quae per Moysen dispensata sunt, vult de reliquo causam rationalem differentiae dicere: nam ille quidem famulus existens, minorum rerum factus est minister; hic vero dominator et regis filius existens, multo maiora nobis attulit coexistens semper patri, et videns eum: propter hoc ita intulit, dicens Deum nemo vidit unquam. CHRYS. Or thus; the Evangelist after showing the great superiority of Christ’s gifts, compared with those dispensed by Moses, wishes in the next place to supply an adequate reason for the difference. The one being a servant was made a minister of a lesser dispensation: but the other Who was Lord, and Son of the King, brought us far higher things, being ever coexistent with the Father, and beholding Him. Then follows, No man has seen God at any time, &c.
Augustinus ad Paulinam: Quid ergo est quod Iacob dicit: vidi dominum facie ad faciem; et quod de Moyse scriptum: quia loquebatur cum Deo facie ad faciem; et illud quod propheta Isaias loquens de seipso ait: vidi dominum Sabaoth sedentem in throno? AUG. What is that then which Jacob said, I have seen God face to face; and that which is written of Moses, he talked with God face to face; and that which the prophet Isaiah said of himself, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne?
Gregorius Moralium: Sed patenter datur intelligi quod quamdiu hic mortaliter vivitur, videri per quasdam imagines potest Deus; sed per ipsam naturae suae speciem non potest; ut anima gratia spiritus afflata, per figuras quasdam Deum videat; sed ad ipsam vim eius essentiae non pertingat. Hinc est enim quod Iacob, qui Deum se vidisse testatur, nonnisi Angelum vidit: hinc est quod Moyses, qui cum Deo facie ad faciem loquitur, dicit: ostende mihi temetipsum manifeste, ut videam te. Ex qua eius petitione colligitur, quia eum sitiebat per incircumscriptae naturae suae claritatem cernere, quem iam coeperat per quasdam imagines videre. GREG. It is plainly given us to understand here, that while we are in this mortal state, we see God only through the medium of certain images, not, in the reality of His own nature. A soul influenced by the grace of the Spirit may see God through certain figures, but cannot penetrate into his absolute essence. And hence it is that Jacob, who testifies that he saw God, saw nothing but an Angel: and that Moses, who talked with God face to face, says, Show me Your way, that I may know You: meaning that he ardently desired to see in the brightness of His own infinite Nature, Him Whom he had only as yet seen reflected in images.
Chrysostomus: Si autem antiqui patres ipsam viderunt naturam, nequaquam differenter considerassent: simplex enim quaedam est et infigurabilis; non sedet, neque stat, neque ambulat; haec enim corporum sunt: unde et per prophetam dicit: ego visionem multiplicavi eis, et in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum; hoc est, condescendi eis, non quod eram apparui: quia enim filius Dei per veram carnem appariturus erat nobis, primo excitavit eos videre Deum, sicut possibile erat eis videre. CHRYS. If the old fathers had seen That very Nature, they would not have contemplated It so variously, for It is in Itself simple and without shape; It sits not, It walks not; these are the qualities of bodies. Whence he said through the Prophet, I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the Prophets: i.e. I have condescended to them, I appeared that which I was not. For inasmuch as the Son of God was about to manifest Himself to us in actual flesh, men were at first raised to the sight of God, in such ways as allowed of their seeing Him.
Augustinus ad Paulinam: Sed cum scriptum sit: beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt, et iterum: cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est, quid est quod hic dicitur Deum nemo vidit unquam? An fortasse respondetur, quod illa testimonia de videndo Deo sunt, non de viso? Ipsi enim Deum videbunt, dictum est, non viderunt; et non vidimus, sed: videbimus eum sicuti est: Deum enim nemo vidit unquam: vel in hac vita sicuti ipse est, vel etiam in Angelorum vita, sicut visibilia ista quae corporali visione cernuntur. AUG. Now it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; and again, When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him, for we shall see Him as He is. What is the meaning then of the words here: No man has seen God at any time? The reply is easy: those passages speak of God, as to be seen, not as already seen. They shall see God, it is said, not, they have seen Him: nor is it, we have seen Him, but, we shall see Him as He is. For, No man has seen God at any time, neither in this life, nor yet in the Angelic, as He is; in the same way in which sensible things are perceived by the bodily vision.
Gregorius Moralium: Si vero a quibusdam potest in hac corruptibili carne viventibus, sed tamen inaestimabili virtute crescentibus, quodam contemplationis acumine aeterna claritas Dei videri; hoc ab hac sententia non abhorret, quoniam quisquis sapientiam, quae Deus est, videt, huic vitae funditus moritur, ne iam eius amore teneatur. GREG. If however any, while inhabiting this corruptible flesh, can advance to such an immeasurable height of virtue, as to be able to discern by the contemplative vision, the eternal brightness of God, their case affects not what we say. For whoever sees wisdom, that is, God, is dead wholly to this life, being no longer occupied by the love of it.
Augustinus super Genesim: Nisi enim ab hac vita quisque quodammodo moriatur, sive omnino exiens de corpore, sive ita aversus et alienatus a carnalibus sensibus, ut merito nesciat, sicut apostolus ait utrum in corpore, an extra corpus sit, non in illam rapitur et subvertitur visionem. AUG. For unless any in some sense die to this life, either by leaving the body altogether, or by being so withdrawn and alienated from carnal perceptions, that he may well not know, as the Apostle says, whether he be in the body or out of the body, he cannot be carried away, and borne aloft to that vision.
Gregorius: Sciendum vero est, quod fuere nonnulli qui Deum dicerent in illa regione beatitudinis in claritate sua conspici, sed in natura minime videri. Quos nimirum minor inquisitionis subtilitas fefellit: neque enim illi simplici et incommutabili essentiae aliud est claritas, aliud natura. GREG. Some hold that in the place of bliss, God is visible in His brightness, but not in His nature. This is to indulge in over much subtlety. For in that simple and unchangeable essence, no division can be made between the nature and the brightness.
Augustinus ad Paulinam: Si autem dicitur, in hoc quod scriptum est Deum nemo vidit unquam, homines tantummodo intelligendos: nam hoc apostolus planius explicans: quem nemo, inquit, hominum vidit, sed nec videre potest, ut ita dictum sit Deum nemo vidit unquam, ac si diceretur: nullus hominum, quaestio illa solvi videbitur, ut non sit huic sententiae contrarium quod dominus ait: Angeli eorum semper vident faciem patris mei; ut scilicet Angelos Deum videre credamus, quem nemo vidit unquam, scilicet hominum. AUG. If we say, that the text, No one has seen God, at any time, applies only to men; so that, as the Apostle more plainly interprets it, Whom no man has seen nor can see, no one is to be understood here to mean, no one of men: the question may be solved in a way not to contradict what our Lord says, Their Angels do always behold the face of My Father; so that we must believe that Angels see, what no one, i.e. of men, has ever seen.
Gregorius: Sunt tamen nonnulli qui nequaquam Deum videre nec Angelos suspicantur. GREG. Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Dicentes, quod ipsum quod Deus est, non solum prophetae, sed nec Angeli viderunt, neque Archangeli. Sed si interrogaveris eos, audies de substantia nihil respondentes. Gloria vero in excelsis Deo non solum cantantes, sed et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis. Et si a Cherubim et Seraphim concupiveris aliquid discere, mysticam sanctimonii melodiam audies, et quoniam plenum est caelum et terra gloria eius. CHRYS. That very existence which is God, neither Prophets, nor even Angels, nor yet Archangels, have seen. For inquire of the Angels; they say nothing concerning His Substance; but sing, Glory to God in the highest, and Peace on earth to men of good will. Nay, ask even Cherubim and Seraphim; you will hear only in reply the mystic melody of devotion, and that heaven and earth are full of His glory.
Augustinus ad Paulinam: Quod quidem intantum verum est, quia Dei plenitudinem nullus non solum oculis corporis, sed vel ipsa mente aliquando comprehendit. Aliud est enim videre, aliud totum videndo comprehendere: quandoquidem id videtur quod praesens utcumque sentitur; totum autem comprehenditur videndo quod ita videtur ut nihil eius lateat videntem, aut cuius fines circumspici possunt. AUG. Which indeed is true so far, that no bodily or even mental vision of man has ever embraced the fullness of God; for it is one thing to see, another to embrace the whole of what you see. A thing is seen, if only the sight of it be caught; but we only see a thing fully, when we have no part of it unseen, when we see round its extreme limits.
Chrysostomus: Sic igitur solus patrem videt filius et spiritus sanctus. Quod enim creabilis est naturae, qualiter poterit videre quod increabile est? Ita igitur nullus novit Deum, ut filius; unde sequitur unigenitus filius, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Ne propter nominis communionem unum quemdam eorum qui gratia facti sunt filiorum esse existimes eum, primo quidem adiectus est articulus. Si vero hoc non sufficit tibi, audi aliud nomen unigenitus. CHRYS. In this complete sense only the Son and the Holy Ghost see the Father. For how can created nature see that which is uncreated? So then no man knows the Father as the Son knows Him: and hence what follows, The Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared, Him. That we might not be led by the identity of the name, to confound Him with the sons made so by grace, the article is annexed in the first place; and then, to put an end to all doubt, the name Only-Begotten is introduced.
Hilarius de Trin: Naturae quidem fides non satis explicata videbatur ex nomine filii, nisi proprietatis virtus per exceptionis significantiam adderetur; praeter filium enim et unigenitum nihil cognominans, suspicionem penitus adoptionis exclusit, cum veritatem nominis unigeniti natura praestaret. HILARY; The Truth of His Nature did not seem sufficiently explained by the name of Son, unless, in addition, its peculiar force as proper to Him were expressed, so signifying its distinctness from all beside. For in that, besides Son, he calls Him also the Only-Begotten, he cut off altogether all suspicion of adoption, the Nature of the Only-Begotten guaranteeing the truth of the name.
Chrysostomus: Sed et aliud posuit, dicens qui est in sinu patris. Etenim in sinu conversari multo plus est quam simpliciter videre: nam qui simpliciter videt, non omnino eius quod videt cognitionem habet: qui vero in sinu conversatur, nihil ignorabit. Cum igitur audieris quod nullus cognoscit patrem nisi filius, nequaquam dicas, quoniam etsi plus omnibus novit patrem, sed non quantus est novit eum: propterea Evangelista in sinu patris eum morari dicit, ut non aestimemus per id aliud significatum quam familiaritatem unigeniti, et coaeternitatem ad patrem. CHRYS. He adds, Which is in the bosom of the Father. To dwell in the bosom is much more than simply to see. For he who sees simply, has not the knowledge thoroughly of that which he sees; but he who dwells in the bosom, knows every thing. When you hear then that no one knows the Father save the Son, do not by any means suppose that he only knows the Father more than any other, and does not know Him fully. For the Evangelist sets forth His residing in the bosom of the Father on this very account: viz. to show us the intimate converse of the Only-Begotten, and His co-eternity with the Father.
Augustinus in Ioannem: In sinu enim patris, idest in secreto patris: non enim Deus habet sinum, quemadmodum nos habemus in vestibus; aut cogitandus est sic sedere quomodo nos; aut forte cinctus est, ut sinum haberet: sed quia sinus noster intus est, secretum patris sinus patris vocatur. Qui ergo in secreto patris novit patrem, ipse enarravit quod vidit. AUG. In the bosom of the Father, i.e. in the secret Presence of the Father: for God has not the fold on the bosom, as we have; nor must be imagined to sit, as we do; nor is He bound with a girdle, so as to have a fold: but from the fact of our bosom being placed innermost, the secret Presence of the Father is called the bosom of the Father. He then who, in the secret Presence of the Father, knew the Father, the same has declared what He saw.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed quid enarravit? Quoniam unus est Deus. Sed et hoc reliqui prophetae et Moyses clamant: quid ergo plus didicimus a filio in sinibus paternalibus existente? Primum quidem ipsa haec quae alii narraverunt, sunt enarrata ex operatione unigeniti; deinde quoniam multo maiorem suscepimus doctrinam per unigenitum, et cognovimus quoniam spiritus est Deus, et quod eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet, et quoniam Deus pater est unigeniti. CHRYS. But what has He declared? That God is one. But this the rest of the Prophets and Moses proclaim: what else have we learnt from the Son Who was in the bosom of the Father? In the first place, that those very truths, which the others declared, were declared through the operation of the Only Begotten: in the next place, we have received a far greater doctrine from the Only Begotten; viz. that God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth; and that God is the Father of the Only Begotten.
Beda: Praeterea sciendum, quia si ad praeteritum referatur quod ait enarravit, homo factus enarravit quid de Trinitatis unitate sentiendum, qualiter ad eius contemplationem properandum, quibus actibus sit perveniendum. Si vero referatur ad futurum, tunc enarrabit cum electos suos ad visionem claritatis suae inducet. BEDE; Farther, if the word declared have reference to the past, it must be considered that He, being made man, declared the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, and how, and by what acts we should prepare ourselves for the contemplation of it. If it have reference to the future, then it means that He will declare Him, when He shall introduce His elect to the vision of His brightness.
Augustinus: Fuerunt autem homines qui dicerent, vanitate cordis sui decepti: pater invisibilis est, filius autem visibilis est. Si ergo propter carnem filius visibilis dicitur, et nos concedimus, et est Catholica fides; si autem, ut ipsi dicunt, antequam incarnaretur, multum delirant, si Christus sapientia Dei et virtus Dei est: sapientia enim Dei videri oculis non potest. Si verbum hominis oculis non videtur, verbum Dei sic videri potest? AUG. Yet have there been men, who, deceived by the vanity of their hearts, maintained that the Father is invisible, the Son visible. Now if they call the Son visible, with respect to His connection with the flesh, we object not; it is the Catholic doctrine. But it is madness in them to say He was so before His incarnation; i.e. if it be true that Christ is the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. The Wisdom of God cannot be seen by the eye. If the human word cannot be seen by the eye, how can the Word of God?
Chrysostomus: Non igitur soli ipsi proprium est Deum nemo vidit unquam, sed et filio: quia, ut Paulus dicit, est imago Dei invisibilis; qui vero invisibilis imago est, et ipse invisibilis est. CHRYS. The text then, No man has seen God at any time, applies not to the Father only, but also to the Son: for He, as Paul said, is the Image of the invisible God; but He who is the Image of the Invisible , must Himself also be invisible.

Lectio 19
19 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου, ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν [πρὸς αὐτὸν] οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἰεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ λευίτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν, σὺ τίς εἶ; 20 καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός. 21 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν, τί οὖν; σύ ἠλίας εἶ; καὶ λέγει, οὐκ εἰμί. ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; καὶ ἀπεκρίθη, οὔ. 22 εἶπαν οὖν αὐτῷ, τίς εἶ; ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς: τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ; 23 ἔφη, ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, καθὼς εἶπεν ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης.
19. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? 20. And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? And he said, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No. 22. Then said they to him, Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What say you of yourself? 23. He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

Origenes: Secundum legitur hoc testimonium a Ioanne Baptista de Christo prolatum, incipiente primo illic: hic est de quo dixi, et desinente ibi: ipse enarravit. ORIGEN; This is the second testimony of John the Baptist to Christ, the first began with, This is He of Whom I spoke; and ended with, He has declared Him.
Theophylactus: Vel aliter. Postquam superius dixit Evangelista, quod Ioannes testabatur de Christo: ante me factus est, nunc subiungit quando praemissum testimonium reddiderit Christo Ioannes; unde dicit et hoc est testimonium Ioannis, quando miserunt Iudaei ab Hierosolymis sacerdotes et Levitas ad Ioannem. THEOPHYL. Or, after the introduction above of John’s testimony to Christ, is preferred before me, the Evangelist now adds when the above testimony was given, And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem.
Origenes: Iudaei quidem ab Hierosolymis, ut cognati existentes Baptistae de stirpe sacerdotali existentis, sacerdotes et Levitas destinant, sciscitaturos quis esset Ioannes; eos scilicet qui reputati sunt secundum electionem ab aliis differre; et ab electo Hierosolymorum loco. Ioannem itaque quaerunt cum tanta veneratione; erga Christum autem nihil huiusmodi factum legitur a Iudaeis. Sed quod erga Ioannem Iudaei, hoc Ioannes erga Christum prosequitur, per proprios discipulos interrogans: tu es qui venturus es, an alium expectamus? ORIGEN; The Jews of Jerusalem, as being of kin to the Baptist, who was of the priestly stock, send Priests and Levites to ask him who he is; that is, men considered to hold a superior rank to the rest of their order, by God’s election, and coming from that favored above all cities, Jerusalem. Such is the reverential way in which they interrogate John. We read of no such proceeding towards Christ: but what the Jews did to John, John in turn does to Christ, when he asks Him, through His disciples, Are you He that should come, or look we for another?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sic autem fide dignum aestimaverunt esse Ioannem, ut ei de seipso dicenti crederent; unde dicitur ut interrogarent eum: tu quis es? CHRYS. Such confidence had they in John, that they were ready to believe him on his own words: witness how it is said, To ask him, Who are you?
Augustinus in Ioannem: Non autem mitterent nisi moverentur excellentia auctoritatis eius, quia ausus est baptizare. AUG. They would not have sent, unless they had been impressed by his lofty exercise of authority, in daring to baptize.
Origenes: Ioannes autem, ut videtur, discernebat ex quaestione, sacerdotum et Levitarum dubitationem, ne forte Christus esset baptizans; apertius tamen illud profiteri cavebant, ne temerarii putarentur. Quapropter merito, ut eorum opinio fallax de eo primitus aboleretur, ac subinde veritas propalaretur, quod non sit Christus ante omnia manifestat; unde sequitur et confessus est, et non negavit: et confessus est: quia non sum ego Christus. Hic etiam adiciamus, quia tempus adventus Christi populum recreabat quodammodo iam praesens existens, legisperitis ex sacris Scripturis illius tempus speratum colligentibus: propter quod Theodas non modicam multitudinem quasi Christus congregavit, et post illum Iudas Galilaeus in diebus professionis. Cum ergo ferventius Christi expectaretur adventus, Iudaei transmittunt ad Ioannem, per hoc quod est tu quis es? Conicere volentes si ipse se Christum fateretur. Non autem ex eo quod dicit non sum ego Christus, negavit: ex hoc enim ipso confessus est veritatem. ORIGEN; John, as it appears, saw from the question, that the Priests and Levites had doubts whether it might not be the Christ, who was baptizing; which doubts however they were afraid to profess openly, for fear of incurring the charge of credulity. He wisely determines therefore first to correct their mistake, and then to proclaim the truth. Accordingly, he first of all shows that he is not the Christ: And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. We may add here, that at this time the people had already begun to be impressed with the idea that Christ’s advent was at hand, in consequence of the interpretations which the lawyers had collected out of the sacred writings to that effect. Thus Theudas had been enabled to collect together a considerable body, on the strength of his pretending to be the Christ; and after him Judas, in the days of the taxation, had done the same. Such being the strong expectation of Christ’s advent then prevalent, the Jews send to John, intending by the question, Who are you? to extract from him whether he were the Christ.
Gregorius in Evang: Negavit plane quod non erat, sed non negavit quod erat, ut veritatem loquens, eius membrum fieret cuius sibi nomen fallaciter non usurparet. GREG. He denied directly being what he was not, but he did not deny what he was: thus, by his speaking truth, becoming a true member of Him Whose name he had not dishonestly usurped.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Passi erant Iudaei quamdam humanam passionem ad Ioannem. Indignum enim aestimabant, subici eum Christo propter multa quae Ioannis claritatem demonstrabant: quorum primum erat genus illustre, principis enim sacerdotum filius erat; deinde dura educatio, humanorum despectio. In Christo autem contrarium videbatur: genus humile, quod ei exprobrabant dicentes: nonne hic est fabri filius? Dieta communis, et vestimenta nihil plus multis habentia. Quia igitur Ioannes continue ad Christum mittebat, volentes magis Ioannem habere magistrum, mittunt ad eum, opinantes per blanditias eum allicere ad confitendum se Christum esse. Non ergo quosdam contemptibiles mittunt, ut ad Christum, ministros et Herodianos, sed sacerdotes et Levitas; et non quoscumque, sed eos qui erant ex Hierosolymis, hoc est honorabiliores; et ad hoc mittunt ut interrogarent tu quis es? Non quasi ignorantes, sed volentes eum inducere ad hoc quod dixi: unde Ioannes ad mentem et non ad interrogationem eis respondit et confessus est, et non negavit; et confessus est: quia non sum ego Christus. Et vide sapientiam Evangelistae. Tertio quasi idem dicit, et virtutem Baptistae indicans, et malitiam et amentiam Iudaeorum. Devoti enim famuli est, non solum non rapere gloriam domini, sed oblatam a multis respuere. Turbae quidem ex ignorantia ad hanc venerunt suspicionem ut Ioannem Christum aestimaret; hi vero a maligna mente, ex qua interrogabant eum, aestimantes per blanditias attrahere ad hoc quod volebant: nisi enim excogitassent hoc, respondenti non sum ego Christus, dixissent: non hoc suspicati sumus, non hoc venimus interrogaturi. Sed capti et manifesti effecti ad aliud veniunt; unde sequitur et interrogaverunt eum: quid ergo? Elias es tu? CHRYS. Or take this explanation: The Jews were influenced by a kind of human sympathy for John, whom they were reluctant to see made subordinate to Christ, on account of the many marks of greatness about him; his illustrious descent in the first place, he being the son of a chief priest; in the next, his hard training, and his contempt of the world. Whereas in Christ the contrary were apparent; a humble birth, for which they reproach Him; Is not this the carpenter’s son? an ordinary way of living; a dress such as every one else wore. As John then was constantly sending to Christ, they send to him, with the view of having him for their master, and thinking to induce him, by blandishments, to confess himself Christ. They do not therefore send inferior persons to him, ministers and Herodians, as they did to Christ, but Priests and Levites; and not of these an indiscriminate party, but those of Jerusalem, i.e. the more honorable ones; but they send them with this question, to ask, Who are you? not from a wish to be informed, but in order to induce him to do what I have said. John replies then to their intention, not to their interrogation: And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And observe the wisdom of the Evangelist: he repeats the same thing three times, to show John’s virtue, and the malice and madness of the Jews. For it is the character of a devoted servant, not only to forbear taking to himself his lord’s glory, but even, when numbers offer it to him, to reject it. The multitude indeed believed from ignorance that John was the Christ, but in these it was malice; and in this spirit they put the question to him, thinking, by their blandishments to bring him over to their wishes. For unless this had been their design, when he replied, I am not the Christ, they would have said, We did not suspect this; we did not come to ask this. When caught, however, and discovered in their purpose, they proceed to another question: And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias?
Augustinus: Noverant enim quod praecessurus erat Elias Christum: non enim alicui ignotum erat nomen Christi apud Hebraeos; sed non putabant illum esse Christum; nec tamen omnino putaverunt Christum non esse venturum; et cum sperarent futurum, offenderunt in praesentem. Sequitur et dixit: non sum. AUG. For they knew that Elias was to preach Christ; the name of Christ not being unknown to any among the Jews; but they did not think that our Lord was the Christ: and yet did not altogether imagine that there was no Christ about to come. In this way, while looking forward to the future, they mistook at the present. And he said, I am not.
Gregorius in Evang: Ex his verbis nobis quaestio valde implexa generatur. Alio quippe in loco inquisitus a discipulis dominus de Eliae adventu, respondit: si vultis scire, Ioannes ipse est Elias. Requisitus autem Ioannes dicit non sum Elias. Quomodo ergo propheta veritatis est si eiusdem veritatis sermonibus concors non est? GREG. These words gave rise to a very different question. In another place, our Lord, when asked by His disciples concerning the coming of Elias, replied, If you will receive it, this is Elias. But John says, I am not Elias. How is he then a preacher of the truth, if he agrees not with what that very Truth declares?
Origenes: Dicet aliquis quod se ignorabat Ioannes esse Eliam; et hoc nimirum utentur documento qui assistunt iteratae incorporationis rationi, tamquam anima denuo induente corpora. Quaerunt enim Iudaei per Levitas ac sacerdotes, an esset Elias, cum iteratae corporis assumptionis documentum verax arbitrantur, quasi paternum existens, nec alienum ab arcanorum suorum doctrina. Ob hoc itaque dicit Ioannes: Elias non sum; nam nescit primaevam vitam propriam. Qualiter autem videtur rationabile, si tamquam propheta spiritu illuminatus est, et de Deo et unigenito tanta narravit, ignorasse de seipso an unquam eius anima fuerit in Elia? ORIGEN; Some one will say that John was ignorant that he was Elias; as those say, who maintain, from this passage the doctrine of a second incorporation, as though the soul took up a new body, after leaving its old one. For the Jews, it is said, asking John by the Levites and priests, whether he is Elias, suppose the doctrine of a second body to be already certain; as though it rested upon tradition, and were part of their secret system. To which question, however, John replies, I am not Elias: not being acquainted with his own prior existence. But how is it reasonable to imagine, if John were a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and had revealed so much concerning the Father, and the Only-Begotten, that he could be so in the dark as to himself, as not to know that his own soul had once belonged to Elias?
Gregorius in Evang: Sed si subtiliter veritas ipsa requiratur, hoc quidem quod inter se contrarium sonat, quomodo contrarium non sit invenitur. Ad Zachariam namque de Ioanne Angelus dixit: ipse praecedet ante illum in spiritu et virtute Eliae, quia scilicet sicut Elias secundum domini adventum praeveniet, ita Ioannes praevenit primum; sicut ille praecursor venturus est iudicis, ita iste praecursor factus est redemptoris. Ioannes igitur in spiritu Elias erat, in persona Elias non erat. Quod autem dominus fatetur de spiritu, hoc Ioannes denegat de persona: quia et iustum sic erat ut discipulis dominus spiritalem de Ioanne sententiam diceret, et Ioannes turbis carnalibus non de suo spiritu, sed de corpore responderet. GREG. But if we examine the truth accurately, that which sounds inconsistent, will be found not really so. The Angel told Zacharias concerning John, He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias. As Elias then will preach the second advent of our Lord, so John preached His first; as the former will come as the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John was Elias in spirit, not in person: and what our Lord affirms of the spirit, John denies of the Person: there being a kind of propriety in this; viz. that our Lord to His disciples should speak spiritually of John, and that John, in answering the carnal multitude, should speak of his body, not of his spirit.
Origenes: Respondit ergo Levitis et sacerdotibus: non sum, coniectans propositum quaestionis eorum: non enim sapiebat praemissa examinatio, si idem spiritus esset in utroque; sed si Ioannes esset ipse Elias qui assumptus est, nunc apparens, secundum quod a Iudaeis expectabatur, absque nativitate. Primus autem arbitrans resumptionem corporum, dicet, quod inconsequens est filium Zachariae tanti sacerdotis in senio natum, super omnem humanam expectationem, ignorari a sacerdotibus et Levitis ipsum natum fuisse; maxime Luca testante quod factus est timor in omnibus habitantibus circa eos. Sed forsan quoniam prope finem Eliam expectabant ante Christum, quasi tropice sciscitari videntur: an es tu qui praenuntias Christum venturum? Et caute respondit: non sum. Sed nihil mirabile. Sicut in salvatore, pluribus scientibus ex Maria nativitatem eius, quidam fallebantur putantes eum Ioannem Baptistam vel Eliam, aut aliquem prophetarum; sic et in Ioanne quosdam ortus eius ex Zacharia non latebat; et quidam dubitabant, si forsan qui expectabatur Elias apparuit in Ioanne. Quoniam vero cum plures in Israel editi fuerint prophetae, unus de quo Moyses prophetaverat, praesertim expectabatur, iuxta illud: prophetam vobis suscitabit Deus ex fratribus vestris: sicut mihi, illi parebitis; tertio sciscitantur, non si foret propheta simpliciter, sed cum articulo, ut in Graeco ponitur; unde sequitur propheta es tu? Per singulos enim prophetas noverat populus Israel neminem eorum fore hunc quem Moyses prophetaverat, qui sicut Moyses medius staret inter Deum et homines, et accepto testamento a Deo traderet discipulis. Hoc autem illis nomen non Christo attribuentibus, sed arbitrantibus alium a Christo ipsum fore, Ioannes scivit quoniam et Christus ille propheta esset; unde subditur et respondit: non. ORIGEN; He answers then the Levites and Priests, I am not, conjecturing what their question meant: for the purport of their examination was to discover, not whether the spirit in both was the same, but whether John was that very Elias, who was taken up, now appearing again, as the Jews expected, without another birth. But he whom we mentioned above as holding this doctrine of a reincorporation, will say that it is not consistent that the Priests and Levites should be ignorant of the birth of the son of so dignified a priest as Zacharias, who was born too in his father’s old age, and contrary to all human probabilities: especially when Luke declares, that fear came on all that dwelt round about them. But perhaps, since Elias was expected to appear before the coming of Christ near the end, they may seem to put the question figuratively, Are you he who announces the coming of Christ at the end of the world? to which he answers, I am not. But there is in fact nothing strange in supposing that John’s birth might not have been known to all. For as in the case of our Savior many knew Him to be born of Mary, and yet some wrongly imagined that He was John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the Prophets; so in the case of John, some were not unacquainted with the fact of his being son of Zacharias, and yet some may have been in doubt whether he were not the Elias who was expected. Again, inasmuch as many prophets had arisen in Israel, but one was especially looked forward to, of whom Moses had prophesied The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren, like to me; to Him shall you hearken: they ask him in the third place, not simply whether he is a prophet, but with the article prefixed, Are you that Prophet? For every one of the prophets in succession had signified to the people of Israel that he was not the one whom Moses had prophesied of; who, like Moses, was to stand in the midst between God and man, and deliver a testament, sent from God to His disciples. They did not however apply this name to Christ, but thought that He was to be a different person; whereas John knew that Christ was that Prophet, and therefore to this question, he answered, No.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel quia Ioannes maior erat quam propheta: quia prophetae longe praenuntiaverunt, Ioannes praesentem demonstrabat. Sequitur dixerunt ergo ei: quis es, ut responsum demus his qui miserunt nos? Quid dicis de teipso? AUG. Or because John was more than a prophet: for that the prophets announced Him afar off, but John pointed Him out actually present. Then said they to him, Who are you? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What say you of yourself?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vides hic vehementius insistentes et interrogantes; hunc autem cum mansuetudine eas quae non erant verae suspiciones destruentem, et eam quae est vera ponentem: unde sequitur ait: ego vox clamantis in deserto. CHRYS. You see them here pressing him still more strongly with their questions, while he on the other hand quietly puts down their suspicions, where they are untrue, and establishes the truth in their place: saying, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Augustinus: Isaias illud dixit; in Ioanne prophetia ista completa est. AUG. So spoke Esaias: the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist.
Gregorius in Evang: Scitis autem quod unigenitus filius verbum patris vocatur. Ex ipsa autem nostra locutione cognoscimus, quia prius vox sonat, ut verbum possit audiri. Ioannes ergo vocem se asserit esse, quia verbum praecedit, et per eius ministerium, patris verbum ab hominibus auditur. GREG. You know that the only-begotten Son is called the Word of the Father. Now we know, in the case of our own utterance, the voice first sounds, and then the word is heard. Thus John declares himself to be the voice, i.e. because he precedes the Word, and, through his ministry, the Word of the Father is heard by man.
Origenes: Ineleganter autem Heracleon de Ioanne et prophetis considerans, ait, quoniam verbum quidem salvator est, vox autem per Ioannem intelligitur; solus enim sonus est omnis gradus propheticus. Cui dicendum, quod si non significativam vocem dederit tuba, nemo se accinget ad praelium. Si ergo nil aliud quam sonus est vox prophetica, quomodo transmittit nos ad illam salvator? Scrutamini Scripturas. Dicit autem Ioannes se esse vocem non clamantem in deserto, sed clamantis in deserto, eius scilicet qui stabat et clamabat: si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat. Clamat enim ut distantes auditu percipiant, et gravem habentes auditum sentiant immensitatem eorum quae dicuntur. ORIGEN; Heracleon, in his discussion on John and the Prophets, infers that because the Savior was the Word, and John the voice, therefore the whole of the prophetic order was only sound. To which we reply, that, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? If the voice of prophecy is nothing but sound, why does the Savior send us to it, saying, Search the Scriptures? But John calls himself the voice, not that cries, but of one that cries in the wilderness; viz. of Him Who stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He cries, in order that those at a distance may hear him, and understand from the loudness of the sound, the vastness of the thing spoken of.
Theophylactus: Vel quia veritatem manifeste annuntiat: omnes enim qui in lege erant, obscure loquebantur. THEOPHYL. Or because he declared the truth plainly, while all who were under the law spoke obscurely.
Gregorius: Vel in deserto Ioannes clamat, quia quasi derelictae ac destitutae Iudaeae solatium redemptoris annuntiat. GREG. John cries in the wilderness, because it is to forsaken and destitute Judea that he bears the consolatory tidings of a Redeemer.
Origenes: Opus autem vocis in deserto clamantis est ut anima a Deo destituta, ad rectam faciendam viam domini revocetur, nequaquam pravitatem serpentini gressus prosequendo: secundum contemplationem quidem sublimatam in veritate absque permixtione mendacii, et secundum actionem post congruam speculationem licitum opus referentem; unde sequitur dirigite viam domini, sicut dixit Isaias propheta. ORIGEN; There is need of the voice crying in the wilderness, that the soul, forsaken by God, may be recalled to making straight the way of the Lord, following no more the crooked paths of the serpent. This has reference both to the contemplative life, as enlightened by truth, without mixture of falsehood, and to the practical, as following up the correct perception by the suitable action. Wherefore he adds, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
Gregorius: Via domini ad cor dirigitur, cum veritatis sermo humiliter auditur; via domini ad cor dirigitur, cum ad praeceptum vita praeparatur. GREG. The way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the word of truth is heard with humility; the way of the Lord is made straight to the heart, when the life is formed upon the precept.

Lectio 20
24 καὶ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων. 25 καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, τί οὖν βαπτίζεις εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐδὲ ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης; 26 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων, ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι: μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, 27 ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ [ἐγὼ] ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος. 28 ταῦτα ἐν βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων.
24. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25. And they asked him, and said to him, Why baptize you then, if you be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 26. John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; 27. He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Origenes: Facta responsione versus sacerdotes et Levitas, denuo missum est a Pharisaeis; unde dicitur et qui missi fuerant erant ex Pharisaeis. Quantum enim ex ipso sermone coniecturari contingit, dico tertium hoc esse testimonium. Vide tamen quomodo iuxta sacerdotalem et leviticam personam est cum mansuetudine prolatum illud tu quis es? Nihil enim arrogans vel protervorum in eorum quaestione continetur, sed cuncta decentia veros Dei ministros. Sed Pharisaei secundum suum nomen divisi et importuni ex discordia contumeliosas voces praetendunt Baptistae; unde sequitur et dixerunt ei: quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Non quasi scire volentes, sed prohibere eum a Baptismo. Deinde vero nescio quo pacto proni ad Baptismum iverunt ad Ioannem. Huius autem solutio est, quia Pharisaei non credentes accedunt ad Baptisma, sed ex hypocrisi, cum timerent populum. ORIGEN; The questions of the priests and Levites being answered, another mission comes from the Pharisees: And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. So far as it is allowable to form a conjecture from the discourse itself here, I should say that it was the third occasion of John’s giving his witness. Observe the mildness of the former question, so befitting the priestly and levitical character, Who are you? There is nothing arrogant or disrespectful, but only what becomes true ministers of God. The Pharisees however, being a sectarian body, as their name implies, address the Baptist in an importunate and contumelious way. And they said, Why baptize you then, if you be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? not caring about information, but only wishing to prevent him baptizing. Yet the very next thing they did, was to come to John’s baptism. The solution of this is, that they came not in faith, but hypocritically, because they feared the people.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel ipsi idem sacerdotes et Levitae ex Pharisaeis erant. Et quia blanditiis eum non valuerunt supplantare, accusationem ei immittere tentant, cogentes eum dicere quod non erat; unde sequitur et interrogaverunt eum, et dixerunt: quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus, neque Elias, neque propheta? Quasi audaciae videbatur esse baptizare, si Christus non erat, nec praecursor illius, nec praeco, idest propheta. CHRYS. Or, those very same priests and Levies were of the Pharisees, and, because they could not undermine him by blandishments, began accusing, after they had compelled him to say what he was not. And they asked him, saying, Why baptize you then, if you are not the Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? As if it were an act of audacity in him to baptize, when he was neither the Christ, nor His precursor, nor His proclaimer, i.e. that Prophet.
Gregorius in Evang: Sed sanctus quisque etiam cum perversa mente requiritur, a bonitatis suae studio non mutatur. Unde Ioannes quoque ad verba invidiae praedicamenta respondit vitae; unde sequitur respondit eis dicens: ego baptizo in aqua. GREG. A saint, even when perversely questioned, is never diverted from the pursuit of goodness. Thus John to the words of envy opposes the words of life: John answered them, saying, I indeed baptize with water.
Origenes: Ad illud enim quid ergo baptizas? Quid aliud afferri decebat, nisi proprium Baptismum carnale praetendere? ORIGEN; For how would the question, Why then baptize you, be replied to in any other way, than by setting forth the carnal nature of his own baptism?
Gregorius: Ioannes enim non spiritu, sed aqua baptizat: quia peccata solvere non valebat: baptizatorum corpora per aquam lavat, sed tamen animas per veniam non lavat. Cur ergo baptizat qui peccata per Baptismum non relaxat? Nisi ut praecursionis suae ordinem servans, scilicet qui nasciturum nascendo praevenerat, baptizaturum quoque dominum baptizando praeveniret; et qui praedicando factus est praecursor Christi, baptizando etiam praecursor eius fieret imitatione sacramenti; qui inter haec mysterium redemptionis nostrae annuntians, hanc in medio hominum et stetisse asserit et nesciri; sequitur enim medius autem vestrum stetit quem vos nescitis: quia per carnem dominus apparens, et visibilis extitit corpore, et invisibilis maiestate. GREG. John baptizes not with the Spirit, but with water; not being able to remit sins, he washes the bodies of the baptized with water, but not their souls with pardon. Why then cloth he baptize, when he cloth not remit sins by’ baptism? To maintain his character of forerunner. As his birth preceded our Lord’s, so cloth his baptism precede our Lord’s baptism. And he who was the forerunner of Christ in His preaching, is forerunner also in His baptism, which was the imitation of that Sacrament. And withal he announces the mystery of our redemption, saying that He, the Redeemer, is standing in the midst of men, and they know it not: There stands one among you, whom you know not: for our Lord, when He appeared in the flesh, was visible in body, but in majesty invisible.
Chrysostomus: Hoc autem dixit, quoniam decens erat Christum commixtum esse populo, ut unum multorum, se ubique humilem esse docentem. Cum autem dixit quem vos nescitis, scientiam hic cognitionem certissimam dicit; puta quis est, et unde. CHRYS. One among you. It was fitting that Christ should mix with the people, and be one of the many, showing every where His humility. Whom you know not; i.e. not, in the most absolute and certain sense; not, who He is, and whence He is.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Humilis enim non videbatur, et propterea lucerna accensa est. AUG. In His low estate He was not seen; and therefore the candle was; lighted.
Theophylactus: Vel medius erat Pharisaeorum dominus; sed ignorabant eum, quia ipsi Scripturas se scire putabant: et inquantum in illis praenuntiabatur dominus, medius eorum erat, scilicet in cordibus eorum; sed nesciebant eum, eo quod Scripturas non intelligebant. Vel aliter. Medius quidem erat, inquantum mediator Dei existens et hominum Christus Iesus medius Pharisaeorum extitit, volens illos Deo iungere; sed ipsi nesciebant eum. THEOPHYL. Or it was, that our Lord was in the midst of the Pharisees; and they not knowing Him. For they thought that they knew the Scriptures, and therefore, inasmuch as our Lord was pointed out there, He was in the midst of them, i.e. in their hearts. But they knew Him not, inasmuch as they understood not the Scriptures. Or take another interpretation. He was in the midst of them, as mediator between God and man, wishing to bring them, the Pharisees, to God. But they knew Him not.
Origenes: Vel aliter. Hoc edito ego baptizo in aqua, ad illud quid ergo baptizas? Ad secundum si tu non es Christus? Praeconium de praecedenti Christi substantia proponit, quod tanta sit ei virtus quod invisibilis sit sua deitate, cum sit praesens cuilibet et totum per orbem diffusus: quod notatur ex illo medius vestrum stetit. Hic enim per totam orbis machinam effluxit, sic ut quae creantur, per ipsum creentur; omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt: unde palam est quod inquirentibus a Ioanne quid ergo baptizas? Ipse medius erat. Vel quod dicitur in medio vestrum stetit, intelligendum est de nobis hominibus. Cum enim simus rationales, in medio nostrum existit; ex eo quod principale, scilicet cor, in medio totius corporis insitum est. Qui ergo verbum in medio gerunt, non autem cognoscunt de illius natura, nec de quo fonte manavit, nec quomodo consistit in eis; hi verbum in medio sui obtinentes ignorant, quod tamen Ioannes agnovit: unde exprobrando dicit ad Pharisaeos quem vos nescitis. Quia expectantes Pharisaei Christi adventum, nihil tam arduum de eo contemplabantur, solum hominem sanctum existimantes eum esse. Dicit autem stetit: nam stat pater invariabilis existens et impermutabilis: stat quoque verbum eius ad salvandum continuo, quamvis carnem suscipiat, quamvis medium hominum stet invisibile. Ne vero putet aliquis alium esse invisibilem ad omnes homines venientem, vel ad universum orbem, ab eo qui humanatus est et in terra comparuit, subdit qui post me venit, hoc est qui post me appariturus est. Non autem idem denotatur hic per hoc quod dicit post, et cum Iesus nos post se invitat; illic enim sequi post ipsum praecipitur nobis, ut eius indagando vestigia, perveniamus ad patrem: hic autem ut pateat quid sequatur ex Ioannis dogmatibus: venit enim ut cuncti credant per eum, praeparati ad perfectum verbum per minora. Dicit ergo ipse est qui post me venit. ORIGEN; Or thus; Having said, I indeed baptize with water,. in answer to the question, Why baptize you then? - to the next, If you be not Christ? he replies by declaring the preexistent substance of Christ; that it was of such virtue, that though His Godhead was invisible, He was present to every one, and pervaded the whole world; as is conveyed in the words; There stands one among you. For He it is, Who has diffused Himself through the whole system of nature, insomuch that every thing which is created, is created by Him; All things were made by Him. Whence it is evident that even those who inquired of John, Why baptize you then? had Him among them. Or, the words, There stands one among you, are to be understood of mankind generally. For, from our character as rational beings, it follows that the word g exists in the center of us, because the heart, which is the spring of motion within us, is situated in the center of the body. Those then who carry the word within them, but are ignorant of its nature, and the source and beginning and the way in which it resides in them; these, hearing the word within them, know it not. But John recognized Him, and reproached the Pharisees, saying, Whom you know now not. For, though expecting Christ’s coming, the Pharisees had formed no lofty conception of Him, but supposed that He would only be a holy man: wherefore he briefly refutes their ignorance, and the false ideas that they had of His excellence. He said, stand; for as the Father stands, i.e. exists without variation or change, so stands the Word ever in the work of salvation, though It assume flesh, though It be in the midst of men, though It stand invisible. Lest any one however should think that the invisible One Who comes to all men, and to the universal world, is different from Him Who was made man, and appeared on the earth, he adds, He that comes after me, i.e. Who will appear after me. The after however here has not the same meaning that it has, when Christ calls us after Him; for there we are told to follow after Him, that by treading in His steps, we may attain to the Father; but here the word is used to intimate what should follow upon John’s teaching; for he came that all may believe, having by his ministry been fitted gradually by lesser things, for the reception of the perfect Word. Therefore he said, He it is Who comes after me.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ac si diceret: ne aestimetis totum in meo consistere Baptismate; si enim meum Baptisma perfectum esset, alius non veniret post me, aliud Baptisma daturus. Sed haec praeparatio est illius, et transibit in proximo, ut umbra et imago; sed oportet eum qui veritatem imponet, venire post me: si enim hoc esset perfectum, nequaquam secundi locus quaereretur; et ideo subdit qui ante me factus est, hic est honorabilior et clarior. CHRYS. As if he said, Do not think that every thing is contained in my baptism; for if my baptism were perfect, another would not come after me with another baptism. This baptism of mine is but an introduction to the other, and will soon pass away, like a shadow, or an image. There is One coming after me to establish the truth: and therefore this is not a perfect baptism; for, if it were, there would be no room for a second: and therefore he adds, Who is made before me: i.e. is more honorable, more lofty.
Gregorius: Sic namque dicitur ante me factus est, ac si dicatur: antepositus est mihi. Post me ergo venit, quia postmodum natus; ante me autem factus est, quia mihi praelatus. GREG. Made before me, i.e. preferred before me. He comes after me, that is, He is born after me; He is made before me, that is, He is preferred to me.
Chrysostomus: Ne autem existimes comparabilem esse excellentiam hanc, incomparabilitatem ostendere volens, subiungit cuius ego non sum dignus ut solvam corrigiam calceamenti; quasi dicat: intantum est ante me ut ego neque in ultimis ministrorum vocari dignus sim: calceamentum enim solvere ultimi ministerii res est. CHRYS. But lest you should think this to be the result of comparison, he immediately shows it to be a superiority beyond all comparison; Whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to unloose: as if He said, He is so much before me, that I am unworthy to be numbered among the lowest of His attendants: the unloosing of the sandal being the very lowest kind of service.
Augustinus: Unde et si dignum se diceret tantummodo corrigiam calceamenti solvere, multum se habuisset. AUG. To have pronounced himself worthy even of unloosing His shoe’s latchet, he would have been thinking too much of himself.
Gregorius in Evang: Vel aliter. Mos apud veteres fuit ut si quis eam quae sibi competeret, accipere uxorem nollet, ille ei calceamentum solveret qui ad hanc sponsus iure propinquitatis veniret. Quid igitur inter homines Christus, nisi sanctae Ecclesiae sponsus apparuit? Recte ergo Ioannes se indignum esse ad solvendam corrigiam eius calceamenti denuntiat; ac si aperte dicat: redemptoris vestigia non denudare valeo; quia sponsi nomen mihi immeritus non usurpo. Quod tamen intelligi et aliter potest. Quis enim nesciat quod calceamenta ex mortuis animalibus fiant? Incarnatus vero dominus veniens, quasi calceatus apparuit, qui in divinitate sua morticina nostrae corruptionis assumpsit. Corrigia ergo calceamenti est ligatura mysterii. Ioannes ergo solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius non valet: quia incarnationis mysterium nec ipse investigare sufficit; ac si patenter dicat: quid mirum si mihi ille praelatus est quem post me quidem natum considero, sed nativitatis eius mysterium non comprehendo? GREG. Or thus: It was a law of the old dispensation, that, if a man refused to take the woman, who of right came to him, to wife, he who by right of relationship came next to be the husband, should unloose his shoe. Now in what character did Christ appear in the world, but as Spouse of the Holy Church? John then very properly pronounced himself unworthy to unloose this shoe’s latchet: as if he said, I cannot uncover the feet of the Redeemer, for I claim not the title of spouse, which I have no right to. Or the passage may be explained in another way. We know that shoes are made out of dead animals. Our Lord then, when He came in the flesh, put on, as it were, shoes; because in His Divinity He took the flesh of our corruption, wherein we had of ourselves perished. And the latchet of the shoe, is the seal upon the mystery. John is not able to unloose the shoe’s latchet; i.e. even he cannot penetrate into the mystery of the Incarnation. So he seems to say: What wonder that He is preferred before me, Whom, being born after me, I contemplate, yet the mystery of Whose birth I comprehend not.
Origenes in Ioannem: Quidam vero non inepte dixit, hoc sic intelligendum. Non sum ego tanti ut causa mei descendat a magnalibus, ac carnem quasi calceamentum suscipiat. ORIG. The place has been understood not amiss thus by a certain person; I am not of such importance, as that for my sake He should descend from this high abode, and take flesh upon Him, as it were a shoe.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Et quia Ioannes cum decenti libertate ea quae de Christo sunt, omnibus praedicabat, propterea Evangelista et locum designat, dicens haec in Bethania facta sunt trans Iordanem, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans. Non enim in domo, neque in angulo Christum praedicabat, sed Iordanem transiens in media multitudine, praesentibus omnibus qui ab eo baptizabantur. Quaedam vero exemplariorum certius habent in Bethabora: Bethania enim non ultra Iordanem, neque in deserto erat, sed prope Hierosolymam. CHRYS. John having preached the thing concerning Christ publicly and With becoming liberty, the Evangelist mentions the place of His preaching: These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. For it was in no house or corner that John preached Christ, but beyond Jordan, in the midst of a multitude, and in the presence of all whom He had baptized. Some copies read more correctly Bethabara: for Bethany was not beyond Jordan, or in the desert, but near Jerusalem.
Glossa: Vel duae sunt Bethaniae: una trans Iordanem, altera citra non longe a Ierusalem, ubi Lazarus fuit suscitatus. GLOSS; Or we must suppose two Bethanies; one over Jordan, the other on this side, not far from Jerusalem, the Bethany where Lazarus was raised from the dead.
Chrysostomus: Hoc autem et propter aliam causam designat: quia enim res non antiquas narrabat, sed ante parvum tempus contingentes, praesentes et videntes testes facit eorum quae dicuntur, demonstrationem a locis tribuens. CHRYS. He mentions this too for another reason, viz. that as He was relating events which had only recently happened, He might, by a reference to the place, appeal to the testimony of those who were present and saw them.
Alcuinus: Bethania vero domus obedientiae interpretatur; per quam innuitur quia per obedientiam fidei omnes ad Baptisma debent pervenire. ALCUIN. The meaning of Bethany is, house of obedience; by which it is intimated to us, that all must approach to baptism, through the obedience of faith.
Origenes: Bethabora vero interpretatur domus praeparationis, et convenit cum Baptismo praeparantis domino plebem perfectam. Iordanis autem interpretatur descensus eorum. Quis autem erit hic fluvius nisi salvator noster, per quem ingredientem in hunc mundum mundari convenit, non suum descendentem descensum, sed humani generis? Hic segregat donatas a Moyse, ab his quae per Iesum donantur, sortes; huius rivuli laetificant civitatem Dei. Sicut autem draco latitat in Aegyptiaco fluvio, ita Deus in isto. Pater enim est in filio; et qui proficiscuntur illuc ubi se lavent, opprobrium Aegypti deponunt, ac apti ad perceptionem hereditatis parantur, necnon a lepra mundantur, et duplicis capaces sunt gratiae, ac prompti fiunt ad susceptionem spiritus almi, in aliud flumen nequaquam descendente spiritali columba. Trans Iordanem vero Ioannes baptizat, ut praecursor venientis non innocentes sed peccatores vocaret. ORIG. Bethabara means house of preparation; which agrees with the baptism of Him, who was making ready a people prepared for the Lord. Jordan, again, means, “their crescent.” Now what is this river but our Savior, through Whom coming into this earth all must be cleansed, in that He came down not for His own sake, but for theirs. This river it is which separates the lots given by Moses, from those given by Jesus; its streams make glad the city of God. As the serpent lies hid in the Egyptian river, so does God in this; for the Father is in the Son. Wherefore whosoever go thither to wash themselves, lay aside the reproach of Egypt, are made meet to receive the inheritance, are cleansed form leprosy, are made capable of a double portion of grace, and ready to receive the Holy Spirit; nor does the spiritual dove light upon any other river. John again baptizes beyond Jordan, as the precursor of Him Who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Lectio 21
29 τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει, ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. 30 οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν. 31 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ' ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων.
29. The next day John sees Jesus coming to him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. 30. This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Origenes: Post testimonium Ioannis, iam videtur Iesus veniens ad eum, non solum adhuc perseverantem, sed et potiorem effectum: quod per diem secundariam designatur; unde dicitur altera die vidit Ioannes Iesum venientem ad se. Pridem autem Iesu mater protinus ut illum concepit, ad matrem Ioannis praegnantem proficiscitur, et per vocem pervenientem ad aures Elisabeth ex Mariae salutatione exultat Ioannes conceptus in utero; hic autem post Ioannis testimonium, ipse videtur a Baptista, accedens ad eum. Prius autem auditu aliorum instruitur aliquis, ac deinde oculate inspicit illa. Per hoc autem quod Maria ad Elisabeth venit minorem, et filius Dei ad Baptistam, ad fervorem opitulandi minoribus, et ad modestiam admonemur. Verum unde ad Baptistam venit salvator, non hic dicitur; sed ex dictis Matthaei colligimus dicentis: tunc venit Iesus a Galilaea ad Iordanem ad Ioannem, ut baptizaretur ab eo. ORIGEN; After this testimony, Jesus is seen coming to John, not only persevering in his confession, but also advanced in goodness: as is intimated by the second day. Wherefore it is said, The next day John sees Jesus coming to him. Long before this, the Mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived Him, went to see the mother of John then pregnant; and as soon as the sound of Mary’s salutation reached the ears of Elisabeth, John leaped in the womb: but now the Baptist himself after his testimony sees Jesus coming. Men are first prepared by hearing from others, and then see with their own eyes. The example of Mary going to see Elisabeth her interior, and the Son of God going to see the Baptist, should teach us modesty and fervent charity to our inferiors. What place the Savior came from when He came to the Baptist we are not told here; but we find it in Matthew, Then comes Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Matthaeus adventum Christi ad Baptismum praesentialiter dicit; Ioannes autem, et rursus eum ivisse ad Ioannem ostendit post Baptisma; et hoc manifestat quod postea dicit quia vidi spiritum descendentem et cetera. Partiti enim sunt sibi Evangelistae tempora narrationis: Matthaeus enim ea quae antequam ligaretur Ioannes Baptista praeteriens, festinat ad ea quae deinceps sunt tempora; sed Ioannes his maxime immoratur, quae scilicet ante incarcerationem Ioannis fuerunt; unde hic dicitur altera die vidit Ioannes Iesum venientem ad se. Cuius igitur gratia secundo post Baptismum ad eum veniebat? Quia ipsum baptizaverat cum multis; ut nullus suspicetur quoniam ex eadem causa ex qua et alii, ad Ioannem veniret; puta peccata confessurus, aut in poenitentiam abluendus in flumine. Propterea ergo accedit, dans Ioanni occasionem corrigendi hanc suspicionem, quam Ioannes per verba correxit; unde sequitur et ait: ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Qui igitur ita purus erat ut aliorum peccata absolvere posset, manifestum est quoniam non ut confiteretur peccata accedit, sed ut occasionem det Ioanni loquendi de ipso. Venit etiam secundo, ut hi qui priora audierant, certius recipiant quae praedicta sunt, et alia rursus audiant. Dicit autem ecce agnus Dei, innuens quod hic est qui olim quaerebatur, rememorans prophetiae Isaiae, et umbrae quae secundum Moysen erat, ut a figura facilius eos ducat ad veritatem. CHRYS. Or; Matthew relates directly Christ’s coming to His baptism, John His coming a second time subsequent to His baptism, as appears from what follows: I saw the Spirit descending, &c. The Evangelists have divided the periods of the history between them; Matthew passing over the part before John’s imprisonment, and hastening to that event; John chiefly dwelling on what took place before the imprisonment. Thus he says, The next day John sees Jesus coming to him. But why did He come to him the next day after His baptism? Having been baptized with the multitude, He wished to prevent any from thinking that He came to John for the same reason that others did, viz. to confess His sins, and be washed in the river to repentance. He comes therefore to give John an opportunity of correcting this mistake; which John accordingly did correct; viz. by those words, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. For He Who was so pure, as to be able to absolve other men’s sins, evidently could not have come thither for the sake of confessing His own; but only to give John an opportunity of speaking of Him. He came too the next day, that those who had heard the former testimonies of John, might hear them again more plainly; and other besides. For he said, Behold the Lamb of God, signifying that He was the one of old sought after, and reminding them of the prophecy of Isaiah, and of the shadows of the Mosaic law, in order that through the figure he might the easier lead them to the substance.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Si autem agnus Dei est innocens, et Ioannes agnus; an non et ipse est innocens? Sed omnes ex illa propagine veniunt de qua cantat gemens David: ego in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. Solus ergo ille agnus qui non sic venit: non enim in iniquitate conceptus est, nec in peccatis mater eius eum in utero aluit, quem virgo concepit, virgo peperit, quia fide concepit, et fide suscepit. AUG. If the Lamb of God is innocent, and John is the lamb, must he not be innocent? But all men come of that stock of which David sings sorrowing, Behold, I was conceived in wickedness. He then alone was the Lamb, who was not thus conceived; for He was not conceived in wickedness, nor in sin did His mother bear Him in her womb, Whom a virgin conceived, a virgin brought forth, because that in faith she conceived, and in faith received.
Origenes in Ioannem: Sed cum quinque offerantur animalia in templo: tria terrestria: vitulus, ovis et capra; volatilia vero duo: turtur et columba; et de ovibus tria adducantur: aries, ovis, agnus; de genere ovium agnum memoravit: agnum enim in oblationibus quotidianis offerri videmus, unum quidem mane, alterum vero vespere. Quaenam autem oblatio alia potest esse quotidiana a rationali natura comprehendenda, nisi verbum vigens, agnus typice nuncupatum? Hoc nempe censebitur oblatio matutina ad frequentiam intellectus in divinis relatum: neque enim anima pati potest ut summis iugiter insistat, eo quod corporis terrestris et gravis coniugium est sortita. Ex hoc etiam verbo quod Christus est agnus, coniectare de pluribus poterimus: et quodammodo vespere pertingemus ad corporalia procedentes. Qui autem hunc obtulit agnum ad immolandum, Deus fuit in homine reconditus, magnus sacerdos, qui dixit: nemo tollit animam meam a me, sed ego pono eam; unde dicitur agnus Dei: ipse enim nostros languores accipiens, totius mundi tollens peccata, mortem quasi Baptismum suscepit. Apud Deum enim non pertransit incorrectum quidquid agimus quod disciplina indigeat, quae per difficilia exercetur. ORIGEN; But whereas five kinds of animals are offered in the temple, three beasts of the field, a calf, a sheep, and a goat; and two fowls of the air, a turtle dove and a pigeon; and of the sheep kind three are introduced, the ram, the ewe, the lamb; of these three he mentions only the lamb; the lamb, as we know, being offered in the daily sacrifice, one in the morning, and one in the evening. But what other daily offering can there be, that can be meant to be offered by a reasonable nature, except the perfect Word, typically called the Lamb? This sacrifice, which is offered up as soon as the soul begins to be enlightened, shall be accounted as a morning sacrifice, referring to the frequent exercise of the mind in divine things; for the soul cannot continually apply to the highest objects because of its union with an earthly and gross body. By this Word too, Which is Christ the Lamb, we shall be able to reason on many things, and shall in a manner attain to Him in the evening, while engaged with things of the body. But He Who offered the lamb for a sacrifice, was God hid in human form, the great Priest, He who said below, No man takes it (My life) from Me, but I lay it down of Myself: whence this name, the Lamb of God: for He carrying our sorrows, and taking away the sins of the whole world, has undergone death, as it were baptism. For God suffers no fault to pass uncorrected; but punishes it by the sharpest discipline.
Theophylactus: Vel dicitur Christus agnus Dei, inquantum Deus pater mortem Christi acceptavit pro nostra salute, vel inquantum eum pro nobis tradidit morti: sicut enim dicere consuevimus: haec oblatio est talis hominis, idest quam talis homo obtulit; sic et Christus dicitur agnus Dei, dantis scilicet filium suum pro nostra salute in mortem. Et ille quidem agnus typicus nullius omnino peccatum sustulit; hic vero peccatum universi orbis terrarum: periclitantem enim mundum eruit ab ira Dei; unde subdit ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Non autem dixit: qui tollet, sed qui tollit peccatum mundi, quasi semper hoc faciente ipso: non enim tunc solum tulit cum passus est, sed ex illo tempore usque ad praesens tollit, non semper crucifixus; unam enim pro peccatis obtulit oblationem, sed semper purgans per illam. THEOPHYL. He is called the Lamb of God, because God the Father accepted His death for our salvation, or, in other words, because He delivered Him up to death for our sakes. For just as we say, This is the offering of such a man, meaning the offering made by him; in the same sense Christ is called the Lamb of God Who gave His Son to die for our salvation. And whereas that typical lamb did not take away any man’s sin, this one has taken away the sin of the whole world, rescuing it from the danger it was in from the wrath of God. Behold Him Who takes away the sin of the world: he said not, who will take, but, Who takes away the sin of the world; as if He were always doing this. For He did not then only take it away when He suffered, but from that time to the present, He takes it away; not by being always crucified, for He made one sacrifice for sins, but by ever washing it by means of that sacrifice.
Gregorius Moralium: Tunc autem ab humano genere plene peccatum tolletur, cum per incorruptionis gloriam nostra corruptio permutabitur: esse namque a culpa liberi non possumus, quousque in corporis morte tenemur. GREG. But then only will sin be entirely taken away from the human race, when our corruption has been turned to a glorious incorruption. We cannot be free from sin, so long as we are held in the death of the body.
Theophylactus: Sed quare non dixit: peccata mundi, sed peccatum? Ut videlicet per hoc quod dixit peccatum, universaliter peccatum videretur innuere; sicut consuevimus dicere, quod homo eiectus est de Paradiso, idest omne genus humanum. THEOPHYL. Why does he say the sin of the world, not sins? Because he wished to express sin universally: just as we say commonly, that man was cast out of paradise; meaning the whole human race.
Beda: Vel peccatum mundi dicitur originale peccatum, quod est commune totius mundi; quod quidem peccatum originale et singulorum superaddita Christus per gratiam relaxat. GLOSS; Or by the sin of the world is meant original sin, which is common to the whole world: which original sin, as well as the sins of every one individually, Christ by His grace remits.
Augustinus: Qui enim de nostra natura peccatum non assumpsit, ipse est qui tollit nostrum peccatum. Nostis, quia quidam homines dicunt: nos tollimus peccata ab hominibus quia sancti sumus: si enim non fuerit sanctus qui baptizat, quomodo tollit peccatum alterius, cum sit ipse homo plenus peccato? Contra istas disputationes hic legamus ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi, ut non sit praesumptio hominibus in homines. AUG. For He Who took not sin from our nature, He it is Who takes away our sin. Some say, We take away the sins of men, because we are holy; for if he, who baptizes, is not holy, how can he take away the other’s sin, seeing he himself is full of sin? Against these reasoners let us point to the text; Behold Him Who takes away the sin of the world; in order to do away with such presumption in man towards man.
Origenes: Sicut tamen iugi oblationi agni cognatae sunt reliquae oblationes legales, sic huius agni oblationi cognatae oblationes videntur mihi effusiones sanguinis martyrum, quorum patientia et confessione et promptitudine ad bonum, obtunduntur machinationes impiorum. ORIGEN; As there was a connection between the other sacrifices of the law, and the daily sacrifice of the lamb, in the same way the sacrifice of this Lamb has its reflection in the pouring out of the blood of the Martyrs, by whose patience, confession, and zeal for goodness, the machinations of the ungodly are frustrated.
Theophylactus: Quia vero superius illis qui ex Pharisaeis venerant Ioannes dixerat quod medius vestrum stat quem vos nescitis, hic ignorantibus demonstrat, dicens hic est de quo dixi: post me venit vir qui ante me factus est. Vir dominus dicitur propter aetatis perfectionem: nam triginta annorum baptizatus est; vel quia spiritualis animae vir est, et Ecclesiae sponsus; unde Paulus: despondi vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo. THEOPHYL. John having said above to those who came from the Pharisees, that there stood one among them whom they knew not, he here points Him out to the persons thus ignorant: This is He of whom I said, After me comes a man which is preferred before me. Our Lord is called a man, in reference to His mature age, being thirty years old when He was baptized: or in a spiritual sense, as the Spouse of the Church; in which sense St. Paul speaks, I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Post me autem venit, quia posterior natus est; ante me factus est, quia praelatus est mihi. AUG. He comes after me, because he was born after me: He is made before me, because He is preferred to me.
Gregorius in Evang: Praelationis autem eius causas aperit, cum subiungit quia prior me erat; ac si aperte dicat: inde me etiam post natus superat quo eum nativitatis suae tempora non angustant: nam qui per matrem in tempore nascitur, sine tempore est a patre generatus. GREG. He explains the reason of this superiority, in what follows: For He was before me; as if his meaning was; And this is the reason of His being superior to me, though born after me, viz. that He is not circumscribed by the time of His nativity. He Who was born of His mother in time, was begotten of His Father out of time.
Theophylactus: Ausculta, o Ari. Non dixit: quia prior me creatus est, sed quia prior me erat. Audiat hoc Pauli Samosateni abusio, quod non ex Maria sumpsit primordium; quia si essendi principium sumpsit ex virgine, qualiter prior extitit praecursore? Nam manifestum est quod praecursor Christum in sex mensibus superabat secundum humanam generationem. THEOPHYL. Attend, O Arius. He said not, He was created before me, but He was before me. Let the false sect of Paul of Samosata attend. They will see that He did not derive His original existence from Mary; for if He derived the beginning of His being from the Virgin, how could He have been before His precursor? it being evident that the precursor preceded Christ by six months, according to the human birth.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ut autem non videatur ex amicitia propter cognationem ei testimonium perhibere, quia cognatus eius erat secundum carnem, propterea dicit ego nesciebam eum. Et secundum rationem hoc contingit: etenim in deserto conversatus est Ioannes. Miracula vero quaecumque Christo puero existente facta sunt, puta quae circa magos, et quaecumque talia, ante multum contigerant tempus, Ioanne et ipso valde puero existente. In medio vero tempore ignotus omnibus existebat; propter quod subdit sed ut manifestetur in Israel, propterea veni ego in aqua baptizans. Hinc enim manifestum est quoniam et illa signa quae quidam dicunt a Christo in pueritia facta, mendacia et fictiones sunt. Si enim a prima aetate miracula fecisset Iesus, nequaquam neque Ioannes eum ignorasset, nec reliqua multitudo indiguisset magistro ad manifestandum eum. Non igitur ipse Christus Baptismate indigebat, neque aliquam aliam causam habebat illud lavacrum quam praemonstrationem facere eius fidei quae est in Christum. Non enim dixit: ut mundem eos qui baptizantur, neque: ut liberem a peccatis, veni baptizans; sed ut manifestetur in Israel. Sed numquid sine Baptismate non licebat praedicare et inducere turbas? Sed facilius ita factum est: nequaquam enim cucurrissent omnes, si sine Baptismate praedicatio facta esset. CHRYS. That He might not seem however to give His testimony from any motive of friendship or kindred, in consequence of his being related to our Lord according to the flesh, he says, I knew Him not. John could not of course know Him, having lived in the desert. And the miraculous events of Christ’s childhood, the journey of the Magi, and such like, were now a long time past; John having been quite an infant, when they happened. And throughout the whole of the interval, He had been absolutely unknown: insomuch that John proceeds, But that He should, be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (And hence it is clear that the miracles said to have been performed by Christ in His childhood, are false and fictitious. For if Jesus had performed miracles at this early age, he would not have been unknown to John, nor would the multitude have wanted a teacher to point Him out.) Christ Himself then did not want baptism; nor was that washing for any other reason, than to give a sign beforehand of faith in Christ. For John said not, in order to change men, and deliver from sin, but, that he should be made manifest in Israel, have I come baptizing. But would it not have been lawful for him to preach, and bring crowds together, without baptizing? Yes: but this was the easier way, for he would not have collected such numbers, had he preached without baptizing.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ubi ergo cognitus est dominus, superfluo ei via parabatur, quia cognoscentibus se, ipse factus est via. Itaque non duravit diu Baptisma Ioannis, sed quoadusque demonstratus est dominus humilis. Ergo ut daretur nobis a domino humilitatis exemplum ad percipiendam salutem Baptismi, suscepit Baptismum servi; et ne praeponeretur Baptismus servi Baptismo domini, baptizati sunt alii Baptismo conservi. Sed qui baptizati sunt Baptismo conservi, oportebat ut baptizarentur Baptismo domini; qui autem baptizantur Baptismo domini, non opus habent Baptismo conservi. AUG. Now when our Lord became known, it was unnecessary to prepare a way for Him; for to those who knew Him, He became His own way. And therefore John’s baptism did not last long, but only so long as to show our Lord’s humility. Our Lord received baptism from a servant, in order to give us such a lesson of humility as might prepare us for receiving the grace of baptism, And that the servant’s baptism might not be set before the Lord’s, others were baptized with it; who after receiving it, had to receive our Lord’s baptism: whereas those who first received our Lord’s baptism, did not receive the servant’s after.

Lectio 22
32 καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ' αὐτόν: 33 κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ' ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, ἐφ' ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. 34 κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.
32. And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptize with the Holy Ghost. 34. And I saw, and bore record that this is the Son of God.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia Ioannes testatus est ita magnum quid quod sufficiens erat auditores omnes stupefacere, puta quod totius orbis terrarum solus ipse peccata tolleret, volens credibilius id facere, reduxit hoc ad Deum et spiritum sanctum. Posset enim aliquis dicere Ioanni: qualiter igitur tu cognovisti eum? Respondet quod per descensum spiritus sancti; unde sequitur et testimonium perhibuit Ioannes, dicens: quia vidi spiritum descendentem quasi columbam de caelo, et mansit super eum. CHRYS. John having made a declaration, so astonishing to all his hearers, viz. that He, whom he pointed out, did of Himself take away the sins of the world, confirms it by a reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. For John might be asked, how did you know Him? Wherefore he replies beforehand, by the descent of the Holy Spirit: And John bore record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Augustinus de Trin: Non autem tunc unctus est Christus spiritu sancto quando super eum baptizatum velut columba descendit: tunc enim corpus suum, scilicet Ecclesiam suam, praefigurare dignatus est, in qua praecipue baptizati accipiunt spiritum sanctum. Absurdissimum enim est ut credamus eum cum iam triginta esset annorum (eius enim aetatis a Ioanne baptizatus est) accepisse spiritum sanctum; sed venisse ad illud Baptisma, sicut sine ullo omnino peccato, ita non sine spiritu sancto. Si enim de famulo eius et praecursore ipso Ioanne scriptum est: spiritu sancto replebitur ab utero matris suae; qui quamvis seminatus a patre, tamen spiritum sanctum in utero formatus accepit: quid de homine Christo intelligendum est vel credendum, cuius carnis ipsa conceptio non carnalis, sed spiritualis fuit? AUG. This was not however the first occasion of Christ’s receiving the unction of the Holy Spirit: viz. Its descent upon Him at His baptism; herein He condescended to prefigure His body, the Church, wherein those who are baptized receive preeminently the Holy Spirit. For it would be absurd to suppose that at thirty years old, (which was His age, when He was baptized by John,) He received for the first time the Holy Spirit: and that, when He came to that baptism, as He was without sin, so was He without the Holy Spirit. For if even of His servant and forerunner John it is written, He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from His mother’s womb; if He, though sprung from His father’s seed, yet received the Holy Ghost, when as yet He was only formed in the womb; what ought we to think and believe of Christ, whose very flesh had not a carnal but spiritual conception?
Augustinus de agone Christiano: Non autem dicimus solum Christum verum corpus habuisse, spiritum autem sanctum fallaciter apparuisse oculis hominum: sicut enim non oportebat ut homines falleret filius Dei, sic nec spiritus sanctus. Sed omnipotenti Deo, qui universam creaturam ex nihilo fabricavit, non erat difficile verum corpus columbae sine aliarum columbarum ministerio figurare; sicut ei non fuit difficile verum corpus in utero virginis sine virili semine fabricare. AUG. We do not attribute to Christ only the possession of a real body, and say that the Holy Spirit assumed a false appearance to men’s eyes: for the Holy Spirit could no more, in consistency with His nature, deceive men, than could the Son of God. The Almighty God, Who made every creature out of nothing, could as easily form a real body of a dove, without the instrumentality of other doves, as He made a real body in the womb of the Virgin, without the seed of the male.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Duobus autem modis ostendit visibiliter dominus spiritum sanctum; per columbam super dominum baptizatum; per ignem vero super discipulos congregatos: ibi simplicitas, hic fervor ostenditur. Ergo ne spiritu sanctificati dolum habeant, in columba demonstratum est; et ne simplicitas frigida remaneat, in igne demonstratum est. Nec movet, quia linguae divisae sunt: noli dissipationem timere, unitatem in columba cognosce. Sic ergo oportebat demonstrari spiritum sanctum venientem super dominum, ut cognoscat unusquisque, si habeat spiritum sanctum, simplicem se esse debere sicut columbam, et habere cum fratribus veram pacem, quam significant oscula columbarum. Osculantur et corvi, sed laniant; a laniatu innocens est natura columbarum: nam corvi de morte pascuntur, columba nonnisi de frugibus terrae vivit. Si etiam gemunt columbae in amore, nolite mirari, quia in columbae specie voluit demonstrari spiritus sanctus; ipse enim interpellat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus. Non autem spiritus sanctus in semetipso, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit. Qui enim novit in pressura se esse mortalitatis huius, peregrinari se a domino, quamdiu propter hoc gemit, bene gemit: spiritus illum docuit gemere. Multi autem gemunt, infelicitate terrena, vel quassati damnis, vel aegritudine corporis praegravati; sed non columbae gemitu gemunt. Unde ergo debuit demonstrari spiritus sanctus unitatem quamdam designans, nisi per columbam, ut pacatae Ecclesiae diceretur: una est columba mea? Unde debuit humilitas figurari nisi per avem simplicem et gementem? Apparuit ibi sancta et vera Trinitas: pater in voce dicente: tu es filius meus dilectus; spiritus sanctus in columba. In ista Trinitate missi sunt apostoli baptizare in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. AUG. The Holy Ghost was made to appear visibly in two ways: as a dove, upon our Lord at His baptism; and as a flame upon His disciples, when they were met together: the former shape denoting simplicity, the latter fervency. The dove intimates that souls sanctified by the Spirit should have no guile; the fire, that in that simplicity there should not be coldness. Nor let it disturb you, that the tongues are cloven; fear no division; unity is assured to us in the dove. It was meet then that the Holy Spirit should be thus manifested descending upon our Lord; in order that every one who had the Spirit might know, that he ought to be simple as a dove, and be in sincere peace with the brethren. The kisses of doves represent this peace. Ravens kiss, but they tear also; but the nature of the dove is most alien to tearing. Ravens feed on the dead, but the dove eats nothing but the fruits of the earth. If doves moan in their love, marvel not that He Who appeared in the likeness of a dove, the Holy Spirit, makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. The Holy Spirit however groans not in Himself, but in us: He makes us to groan. And he who groans, as knowing that, so long as He is under the burden of this mortality, he is absent from the Lord, groans well: it is the Spirit that has taught him to groan. But many groan because of earthly calamities; because of losses which disquiet them, or bodily sickness which weigh heavily on them: they groan not, as does the dove. What then could more fitly represent the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity, than the dove? as He said Himself to His reconciled Church, My dove is one. What could better express humility, than the simplicity and moaning of a dove? Wherefore on this occasion it was that there appeared the very most Holy Trinity, the Father in the voice which said, You are My beloved Son; the Holy Spirit in the likeness of the dove. In that Trinity the Apostles were sent to baptize, i.e. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Gregorius Moralium: Dicit autem manentem super eum: in cunctis namque fidelibus spiritus sanctus venit, sed in solo mediatore semper singulariter permanet: quia eius humanitatem nunquam deseruit, ex cuius divinitate procedit. Sed cum de eodem spiritu discipulis dicatur: apud vos manebit, quomodo singulare signum erit quod in Christo permanet? Quod citius cognoscemus, si dona spiritus discernamus. In his enim donis, sine quibus ad vitam perveniri non potest, spiritus sanctus in electis omnibus semper permanet; ut sunt mansuetudo, humilitas, fides, spes, caritas; in illis autem quibus per ostensionem spiritus non nostra servatur vita, sed aliorum quaeritur, non semper manet, sed aliquando se a signorum ostensionibus subtrahit, ut humilius eius virtutes habeantur. Christus autem in cunctis eum semper et continue habuit praesentem. GREG. He said, Abode upon Him: for the Holy Spirit visits all the faithful; but on the Mediator alone does He abide for ever in a peculiar manner; never leaving the Son’s Humanity, even as He proceeds Himself from the Son’s Divinity. But when the disciples are told of the same Spirit, He shall dwell with you, how is the abiding of the Spirit a peculiar sign of Christ? This will appear if we distinguish between the different gifts of the Spirit. As regards those gifts which are necessary for attaining to life, the Holy Spirit ever abides in all the elect; such are gentleness, humility, faith, hope, charity: but with respect to those, which have for their object, not our own salvation, but that of others, he does not always abide, but sometimes withdraws, and ceases to exhibit them; that men may be more humble in the possession of His gifts. But Christ had all the gifts of the Spirit, uninterruptedly always.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ne autem aliquis aestimet spiritus Christum indiguisse sicut et nos, hanc etiam destruit suspicionem, ostendens quod spiritus sancti descensio solum pro manifestando Christo facta est; unde sequitur et ego nesciebam eum; sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua, mihi dixit: super quem videris spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hic est qui baptizat in spiritu sancto. CHRYS. Should any however think that Christ really wanted the Holy Spirit, in the way that we do, he corrects this notion also, by informing us that the descent of the Holy Ghost took place only for the purpose of manifesting Christ: And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quis autem misit Ioannem? Si dicamus: pater, verum dicimus; si dicamus: filius, verum dicimus. Manifestius autem est ut dicamus: pater et filius. Quomodo ergo nesciebat eum a quo missus est? Si enim non noverat eum a quo voluit baptizari, temere dicebat ego a te debeo baptizari. Noverat ergo eum: quid ergo est quod dicit et ego nesciebam eum? AUG. But who sent John? If we say the Father, we say true; if we say the Son, we say true. But it would be truer to say, the Father and the Son. How then knew he not Him, by Whom he was sent? For if he knew not Him, by Whom he wished to be baptized, it was rash in him to say, I have need to be baptized by You. So then he knew Him; and why said he, I knew Him not?
Chrysostomus: Sed cum dicit nesciebam eum, anterius tempus dicit, non tempus quod est prope Baptismum, cum prohibebat eum, dicens ego a te debeo baptizari. CHRYS. When he said, I knew Him not, he is speaking of time past, not of the time of his baptism, when he forbade Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of You.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sed legantur alii Evangelistae, qui planius illud dixerunt; et inveniemus apertissime tunc descendisse columbam cum dominus ab aqua ascendit. Si ergo post Baptisma descendit columba, et antequam baptizaretur dixit illi Ioannes ego a te debeo baptizari; ante Baptismum illum noverat: quomodo ergo dixit ego nesciebam eum; sed qui misit me baptizare? et cetera. Hoc audivit Ioannes, ut nosceret eum quem non noverat, an forte ut plenius nosset quem iam noverat? Noverat quidem dominum, noverat filium Dei, noverat quia ipse baptizaret in spiritu sancto. Ante enim quam veniret ad fluvium Christus, cum multi ad Ioannem concurrerent, ait illis qui post me venit, maior me est: ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto et igne. Sed quid? Non noverat, potestatem Baptismi ipsum dominum habiturum et sibi retenturum (ne Paulus aut Petrus diceret: Baptismus meus, sicut invenis dixisse: Evangelium meum), sed ministerium plane transiturum in bonos et malos? Quid tibi faciat malus minister, ubi bonus est dominus? Ecce post Ioannem baptizatum est, post homicidam non est baptizatum: quia Ioannes dedit Baptismum suum, homicida dedit Baptismum Christi; quod sacramentum tam sanctum est ut nec homicida ministrante polluatur. Potuit autem dominus, si vellet, potestatem dare alicui servo suo ut daret Baptismum suum tamquam vice sua, et constituere tantam vim in Baptismate translato in servum, quantam vim haberet Baptisma datum a domino. Hoc noluit ut in illo esset spes baptizatorum a quo baptizatos se agnoscerent; et noluit servum ponere spem in servo. Si autem daret hanc potestatem servis, tot essent Baptismata quot essent servi; et quomodo dictum est Baptisma Ioannis, sic diceretur Baptisma Petri vel Pauli. Per hanc ergo potestatem, quam solum sibi Christus retinuit, stat unitas Ecclesiae, de qua dictum est: una est columba mea. Potest autem fieri ut aliquis habeat Baptismum praeter columbam; ut prosit ei Baptismus praeter columbam, non potest. AUG. Let us turn to the other Evangelists, who relate the matter more clearly, and we shall find most satisfactorily, that the dove descended when our Lord ascended from the water. If then the dove descended after baptism, but John said before the baptism, I have need to be baptized of You, he knew Him before His baptism also. How then said he, I knew him not, but He which sent me to baptize? Was this the first revelation made to John of Christ’s person, or was it not rather a fuller disclosure of what had been already revealed? John knew the Lord to be the Son of God, knew that He would baptize with the Holy Ghost: for before Christ came to the river, many having come together to hear John, he said unto them, He that comes after me is mightier than I: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. What then? He did not know that our Lord (lest Paul or Peter might say, my baptism, as we find Paul did say, my Gospel,) would have and retain to Himself the power of baptism, the ministering of it however passing to good and bad indiscriminately. What hindrance is the badness of the minister, when the Lord is good? So then we baptize again after John’s baptism; after a homicide’s we baptize not: because John gave his own baptism, the homicide gives Christ’s; which is so holy a sacrament, that not even a homicide’s ministration can pollute it. Our Lord could, had He so willed, have given power to any servant of His to give baptism as it were in His own stead; and to the baptism, thus transferred to the servant, have imparted the same power, that it would have had, when given by Himself. But this He did not choose to do; that the hope of the baptized might be directed to Him, Who had baptized them; He wished not the servant to place hope in the servant. And again, had He given this power to servants, there would have been as many baptisms as servants; as there had been the baptism of John, so should we have had the baptism of Paul and of Peter. It is by this power then, which Christ retains in His own possession exclusively, that the unity of the Church is established; of which it is said, My dove is one. A man may have a baptism besides the dove; but that any besides the dove should profit, is impossible.
Chrysostomus: Et quia pater vocem emisit praedicans filium, superveniet spiritus sanctus vocem trahens super caput Christi, ne quis praesentium existimaret dici de Ioanne quod dictum est de Christo. Sed dicet aliquis: qualiter non crediderunt Iudaei, si viderunt spiritum? Sed talia non solum indigent oculis corporis, sed magis visione mentis. Si namque miracula facientem videntes, intantum ebrii erant a livore ut contraria his quae videbantur, enuntiarent; qualiter solo adventu spiritus sancti in specie columbae expulissent incredulitatem? Quidam vero dicunt, non omnes vidisse spiritum, sed solum Ioannem, et eos qui devotius dispositi erant. Etsi enim sensibilibus oculis possibile erat videre in specie columbae spiritum descendentem; non tamen propter hoc necesse est omnibus hoc fuisse manifestum. Etenim Zacharias in specie sensibili multa consideravit, et Daniel, et Ezechiel; sed et Moyses multa vidit, qualia aliorum nullus: unde subdit Ioannes et ego vidi, et testimonium perhibui, quia hic est filius Dei. Agnum quidem eum vocaverat; et quoniam in spiritu baptizare debebat, dixit, filium autem ante hoc nusquam. CHRYS. The Father having sent forth a voice proclaiming the Son, the Holy Spirit came besides, bringing the voice upon the head of Christ, in order that no one present might think that what was said of Christ, was said of John. But it will be asked: How was it that the Jews believed not, if they saw the Spirit? Such sights however require the mental vision, rather than the bodily. If those who saw Christ working miracles were so drunken with malice, that they denied what their own eyes had seen, how could the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove overcome their incredulity? Some say however that the sight was not visible to all, but only to John, and the more devotional part. But even if the descent of the Spirit, as a dove, was visible to the outward eye, it does not follow that because all saw it, all understood it. Zacharias himself, Daniel, Ezechiel, and Moses saw many things, appealing to their senses, which no one else saw: and therefore John adds, And I saw and bore record that this is the Son of God. He had called Him the Lamb before, and said that He would baptize with the Spirit; but he had no where called Him the Son before.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Oportebat enim ut ille baptizaret qui est filius Dei unicus, non adoptatus. Adoptati filii ministri sunt unici; unicus autem habet potestatem, adoptati ministerium. AUG. It was necessary that the Only Son of God should baptize, not an adopted son. Adopted sons are ministers of the Only Son: but though they have the ministration, the Only one alone has the power.

Lectio 23
35 τῇ ἐπαύριον πάλιν εἱστήκει ὁ Ἰωάννης καὶ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ δύο, 36 καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ Ἰησοῦ περιπατοῦντι λέγει, ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.
35. Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; 36. And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said, Behold the Lamb of God!

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia multi his quae a principio Ioannes dicebat non attendebant, secunda rursus eos excitat voce; unde dicitur altera die iterum stabat Ioannes, et ex discipulis eius duo. CHRYS. Many not having attended to John’s words at first, he rouses them a second time: Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples.
Beda: Stabat quidem Ioannes, quia illam virtutum arcem conscenderat, a qua nullis tentationum posset improbitatibus deici: stabant cum illo discipuli, quia magisterium illius corde sequebantur immobili. BEDE; John stood, because he had ascended that citadel of all excellences, from which no temptations could cast him down: his disciples stood with him, as stout-hearted followers of their master.
Chrysostomus: Sed quare non totum mundum circuivit, in omni loco Iudaeae praedicans eum; sed stabat circa flumen, expectans eum venire, ut ostenderet venientem? Quia scilicet per opera Christi hoc fieri volebat. Vide etiam qualiter hoc maioris aedificationis fuit: quia enim parvam immisit scintillam, repente flamma in altum elevata est. Alter autem etsi circumiens hoc dixisset, videretur ex studio quodam humano fieri quae fiebant, et suspicione plenum esset eius praeconium. Igitur prophetae quidem et apostoli omnes absentem Christum praedicaverunt; hi quidem ante praesentiam secundum carnem, illi vero post assumptionem: unde ut ostendatur quod non voce solum, sed et oculis eum ostendebat, subditur et respiciens Iesum ambulantem, dixit: ecce agnus Dei. CHRYS. But wherefore went he not all about, preaching in every place of Judea; instead of standing near the river, waiting for His coming, that he might point Him out? Because he wished this to be done by the works of Christ Himself. And observe how much greater an effort was produced; He struck a small spark, and suddenly it rose into a flame. Again, if John had gone about and preached, it would have seemed like human partiality, and great suspicion would have been excited. Now the Prophets and Apostles all preached Christ absent; the former before His appearance in the flesh, the latter after His assumption. But He was to be pointed out by the eye, not by the voice only; and therefore it follows: And looking upon Jesus as He walked, he said, Behold the Lamb of God!
Theophylactus: Respiciens, inquit, quasi oculis innuens gratiam et admirationem quam habebat in Christo. THEOPHYL. Looking he said, as if signifying by his looks his love and admiration for Christ.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ioannes quidem amicus sponsi erat; non quaerebat gloriam suam, sed testimonium perhibebat veritati: non enim voluit apud se remanere discipulos suos, ut non sequerentur dominum; sed magis ostendit quem sequerentur, dicens ecce agnus Dei. AUG. John was the friend of the Bridegroom; he sought not his own glory, but bore witness to the truth. And therefore he wished not his disciples to remain with him, to the hindrance of their duty to follow the Lord; but rather showed them whom they should follow, saying, Behold the Lamb of God.
Chrysostomus: Non longum facit sermonem: quoniam unum solum in studio habebat, adducere eos, et coniungere Christo: sciebat enim quoniam de reliquo non indigerent eo testante. Non autem singulariter discipulis loquitur de his Ioannes, sed eis publice cum omnibus: quia ex communi doctrina suscipientes sequelam Christi, firmi de reliquo permanserunt, non propter gratiam Christi sequentes eum, sed propter suum lucrum: et non facit sermonem suum deprecativum, sed admiratur solum praesentem, et demonstrat eis praeparationem propter quam venit, et modum praeparationis: agnus enim utrumque insinuat: et dicit agnus, cum articuli adiectione, excellentiam eius ostendens. CHRYS. He makes not a long discourse, having only one object before him, to bring them and join them to Christ; knowing that they would not any further need his witness. John does not however speak to his disciples alone, but publicly in the presence of all. And so, undertaking to follow Christ, through this instruction common to all, they remained thenceforth firm, following Christ for their own advantage, not as an act of favor to their master. John does not exhort: he simply gazes in admiration on Christ, pointing out the gift He came to bestow, the cleansing from sin: and the mode in which this would be accomplished: both of which the word Lamb testifies to. Lamb has the article affixed to it, as a sign of preeminence.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Iste enim singulariter dicitur agnus solus sine macula, sine peccato; non cuius maculae abstersae sunt, sed cuius macula nulla fuerit: singulariter hic est agnus Dei, quia singulariter huius agni sanguine solo homines redimi potuerunt. Hic est agnus quem lupi timent, qui leonem occisus occidit. AUG. For He alone and singly is the Lamb without spot, without sin; not because His spots are wiped off; but because He never had a spot. He alone is the Lamb of God, for by His blood alone can men be redeemed. This is the Lamb whom the wolves fear; even the slain Lamb, by whom the lion was slain.
Beda: Ideo etiam agnum vocat, quia dona sui velleris sponte largiturum, ex quo vestem nobis nuptialem facere possumus, idest exempla vivendi nobis relicturum, praevidit, quibus in dilectione calefieri deberemus. BEDE. The Lamb therefore he calls Him; for that He was about to give us freely His fleece, that we might make of it a wedding garment; i.e. would leave us an example of life, by which we should be warmed into love.
Alcuinus: Mystice autem stat Ioannes, cessat lex, et venit Iesus, idest gratia Evangelii, cui ipsa lex perhibet testimonium. Ambulat Iesus discipulos collecturus. ALCUIN. John stands in a mystical sense, the Law having ceased, and Jesus comes, bringing the grace of the Gospel, to which that same Law bears testimony. Jesus walks, to collect disciples.
Beda: Ambulatio etiam Iesu dispensationem incarnationis, qua ad nos venire ac nobis exempla vivendi praebere dignatus est, insinuat. BEDE. The walking of Jesus has a reference to the economy of the Incarnation, by means of which He has condescended to come to us, and give us a pattern of life.

Lectio 24
37 καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ δύο μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος καὶ ἠκολούθησαν τῷ Ἰησοῦ. 38 στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος αὐτοὺς ἀκολουθοῦντας λέγει αὐτοῖς, τί ζητεῖτε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, ῥαββί ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε, ποῦ μένεις; 39 λέγει αὐτοῖς, ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε. ἦλθαν οὖν καὶ εἶδαν ποῦ μένει, καὶ παρ' αὐτῷ ἔμειναν τὴν ἡμέραν ἐκείνην: ὥρα ἦν ὡς δεκάτη.
40 ἦν Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου εἷς ἐκ τῶν δύο τῶν ἀκουσάντων παρὰ Ἰωάννου καὶ ἀκολουθησάντων αὐτῷ:
37. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. 38. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, What seek you? They said unto Him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwell you? 39. He said to them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. 40. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.

Alcuinus: Ioanne perhibente testimonium quia Iesus esset agnus Dei, discipuli qui prius erant cum Ioanne, magistri imperium implentes, secuti sunt Iesum; unde dicitur et audierunt eum duo discipuli loquentem, et secuti sunt Iesum. ALCUIN. John having borne witness that Jesus was the Lamb of God, the disciples who had been hitherto with him, in obedience to his command, followed Jesus: And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Considera autem, quia quando dixit: post me veniens ante me factus est, et quoniam non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti eius, nullum cepit; sed quando de dispensatione locutus est, et ad humiliora sermonem duxit dicens ecce agnus Dei, tunc secuti sunt eum discipuli. Multi enim non ita adducuntur cum aliquid magnum et excelsum de Deo dicatur, sicut cum benignum et amicum hominum audiunt, et aliquid ad salutem hominum pertinens. Considerandum autem, quod Ioannes dicit ecce agnus Dei, et Christus nihil loquitur: nam et sponsus cum silentio adest: alii eum inducunt, et sponsam in manu eius ponunt; quam cum acceperit, de ea disponit. Ita Christus venit copulaturus sibi Ecclesiam, nihil ipse dixit; sed accessit solum amicus eius Ioannes, dexteram ei sponsae imposuit, per sermones suos animas hominum in manus ei ponens; quos accipiens ita disposuit ut ultra ad Ioannem non redirent. Sed aliud hic observandum est: sicut enim in nuptiis non puella ad sponsum vadit, sed ipse ad eam festinat, ita hic contingit: non enim in caelum ascendit hominum natura; sed ad eam filius Dei accessit, et ad domum duxit paternam. Et quidem alii discipuli Ioannis erant qui non solum secuti non sunt, sed et zelotype ad Christum dispositi erant; qui autem meliores erant, simul audierunt et secuti sunt, non quasi magistrum priorem contemnentes, sed ab eo persuasi, promittente quod baptizaret in spiritu sancto Christus. Et vide discipulorum studium cum verecundia fieri: neque enim mox ascendentes interrogaverunt Iesum de necessariis et maximis rebus; neque publice, sed singulariter ei loqui studuerunt; unde sequitur conversus autem Iesus, et videns eos sequentes se, dicit eis: quid quaeritis? Hinc erudimur quia cum nos bene velle inceperimus, tunc Deus dat nobis multas salutis occasiones. Interrogat autem, non ut discat, sed ut per interrogationem magis eos familiares faciat, et ampliorem fiduciam det, et ostendat eos auditione dignos. CHRYS. Observe; when he said, He that comes after me is made before me, and, Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, he gained over none; but when he made mention of the economy, and gave his discourse a humbler turn, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, then his disciples followed Christ. For many persons are less influenced by the thoughts of God’s greatness and majesty, than when they hear of His being man’s Helper and Friend; or any thing pertaining to the salvation of men. Observe too, when John says, Behold the Lamb of God, Christ says nothing. The Bridegroom stands by in silence; others introduce Him, and deliver the Bride into His hands; He receives her, and so treats her that she no longer remembers those who gave her in marriage. Thus Christ came to unite to Himself the Church; He said nothing Himself; but John, the friend of the Bridegroom, came forth, and put the Bride’s right hand in His; i.e. by his preaching delivered into His hands men’s souls, whom receiving He so disposed of, that they returned no more to John. And observe farther; As at a marriage the maiden goes not to meet the bridegroom, (even though it be a king’s son who weds a humble handmaid,) but he hastens to her; so is it here. For human nature ascended not into heaven, but the Son of God came down to human nature, and took her to His Father’s house. Again; There were disciples of John who not only did not follow Christ, but were even enviously disposed toward Him; but the better part heard, and followed; not from contempt of their former master, but by his persuasion; because he promised them that Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost. And see with what modesty their zeal was accompanied. They did not straightway go and interrogate Jesus on great and necessary doctrines, nor in public, but sought private converse with Him; for we are told that Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, What seek you? Hence we learn, that when we once begin to form good resolutions, God gives us opportunities enough of improvement. Christ asks the question, not because He needed to be told, but in order to encourage familiarity and confidence, and show that He thought them worthy of His instructions.
Theophylactus: Vide autem quod sequentibus se dominus convertit faciem, et respexit: quia nisi per bonam operationem ipsum secutus fueris, ad visionem faciei eius numquam pertinges, neque ad domum eius poteris pervenire. THEOPHYL. Observe then, that it was upon those who followed Him, that our Lord turned His face and looked upon them. Unless you by your good works follow Him, you shall never be permitted to see His face, or enter into His dwelling.
Alcuinus: Ergo illi discipuli tergum ipsius sequebantur ut viderent, et faciem domini videre non poterant; ideo convertit se, et quodammodo de sua maiestate descendit, ut possint discipuli faciem illius contemplari. ALCUIN. The disciples followed behind His back, in order to see Him, and did not see His face. So He turns round, and, as it were, lowers His majesty, that they might be enabled to behold His face.
Origenes: Forte autem non frustra post sextum testimonium desinit Ioannes eos contestari, et Iesus secundum septimum dicit quid quaeritis? ORIGEN. Perhaps it is not without a reason, that after six testimonies John ceases to bear witness, and Jesus asks seventhly, What seek you?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed illi non solum sequendo, sed interrogando amorem suum ad Christum manifestaverunt; unde sequitur qui dixerunt ei: Rabbi (quod dicitur interpretatum magister), ubi habitas? Nondum ab eo aliquid discentes, magistrum eum vocant, ad discipulatum se impellentes, et causam ostendentes propter quid sequebantur. CHRYS. And besides following Him, their questions showed their love for Christ; They said to Him, Rabbi, (which is, being interpreted, Master,) where dwell You? They call Him, Master, before they have learnt any thing from Him; thus encouraging themselves in their resolution to become disciples, and to show the reason why they followed.
Origenes: Congrua vero provectis ex Ioannis testimonio prolatio depromens Christum doctorem, ac exprimens desiderare habitaculum filii Dei contueri. ORIGEN. An avowal, befitting persons who came from hearing John’s testimony. They put themselves under Christ’s teaching, and express their desire to see the dwelling of the Son of God.
Alcuinus: Nolunt enim transitorie uti eius magisterio, sed inquirunt ubi maneat, ut et tunc in secreto verbis illius imbui, et exinde saepius possent eum visitare et plenius instrui. Mystice autem volunt sibi ostendi in quibus Christus habitet, ut eorum exemplo se tales exhibeant in quibus velit habitare. Vel quod Iesum ambulantem vident, et statim ubi maneat quaerunt, nos monet, ut cum incarnationem eius ad mentem reducimus, sollicito corde eum rogemus ut mansionem aeterni habitaculi nobis ostendat: unde quia videt bene petentes, libere eis sua reserat arcana; unde sequitur dicit eis: venite et videte; quasi dicat: habitaculum meum explicari non potest sermone, sed opere demonstratur. Venite ergo credendo et operando, et videte intelligendo. ALCUIN. They do not wish to be under His teaching for a time only, but inquire where He abides; wishing an immediate initiation in the secrets of His word, and afterwards meaning often to visit Him, and obtain fuller instruction. And, in a mystical sense too, they wish to know in whom Christ dwells, that profiting by their example they may themselves become fit to be His dwelling. Or, their seeing Jesus walking, and straightway inquiring where He resides, is an intimation to us, that we should, remembering His Incarnation, earnestly entreat Him to show us our eternal habitation. The request being so good a one, Christ promises a free and full disclosure. He said to them, Come and see: that is to say, My dwelling is not to be understood by words, but by works; come, therefore, by believing and working, and then see by understanding.
Origenes: Vel per hoc quod dicit venite, ad actionem invitat; per hoc autem quod dicit videte, ad contemplationem. ORIGEN. Or perhaps come, is an invitation to action; see, to contemplation.
Chrysostomus: Christus autem non dicit eis signa domus neque locum, sed attrahit eos ad sequendum. Non dixit: non est tempus nunc, audietis cras, si quid vultis discere; sed ut ad amicos et familiares loquitur. Qualiter ergo alibi ait: filius hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet, hic autem dicit venite et videte ubi habito? Sed per hoc quod dixit: non habet ubi caput suum reclinet demonstravit quod habitaculum proprium non habebat, non quod in domo non maneret; sequitur enim venerunt, et viderunt ubi maneret, et manserunt ibi die illo. Cuius autem gratia manserunt non adiungit Evangelista, quia manifestum erat quod propter doctrinam. CHRYS. Christ does not describe His house and situation, but brings them after Him, showing that he had already accepted them as His own. He says not, It is not the time now, tomorrow you shall hear if you wish to learn; but addresses them familiarly, as friends who had lived with him a long time. But how is it that He said in another place, The Son of man has no where to lay His head? when here He says, Come and see where I live? His not having where to lay His head, could only have meant that He had no dwelling of His own, not that He did not live in a house at all: for the next words are, They came and saw where He dwelt, and abode with Him that day. Why they stayed the Evangelist does not say: it being obviously for the sake of His teaching.
Augustinus: Quam beatum autem diem duxerunt, quam beatam noctem. Aedificemus ergo et nosmetipsi in corde nostro, et faciamus domum, quo veniat ille et doceat nos. AUG. What a blessed day and night was that! Let us too build up in our hearts within, and make Him an house, whither He may come and teach us.
Theophylactus: Non frustra autem et tempus notavit Evangelista, cum subdit hora autem erat quasi decima; ut tam doctores quam discipulos erudiret, quod doctrina propter tempus non est praetermittenda. THEOPHYL. And it was about the tenth hour. The Evangelist mentions the time of day purposely, as a hint both to teachers and learners, not to let time interfere with their work.
Chrysostomus: Multum enim studium demonstrabant ad audiendum, in eo quia neque ab hora aversi sunt, cum sol esset ad occasum. Et multis quidem carni servientibus tempus quod est post escas, non est aptum ad quippiam necessariorum, eo quod corpus escis gravatur. Ioannes vero, cuius isti erant discipuli, non erat talis: sed cum multo maiori sobrietate vespere degens quam nos mane. CHRYS. It showed a strong desire to hear Him, since even at sunset they did not turn from Him. To sensual persons the time after meals is unsuitable for any grave employment, their bodies being overloaded with food. But John, whose disciples these were, was not such a one. His evening was a more abstemious one than our mornings.
Augustinus: Numerus etiam iste legem significat, quia in decem praeceptis data est lex. Venerat autem tempus ut impleretur lex per dilectionem, quae a Iudaeis impleri non poterat per timorem; unde et decima hora dominus audivit Rabbi: magister enim legis non est nisi dator legis. Sequitur erat autem Andreas frater Simonis Petri unus ex duobus qui audierant a Ioanne, et secuti fuerant eum. AUG. The number here signifies the law, which was composed of ten commandments. The time had come when the law was to be fulfilled by love, the Jews, who acted from fear, having been unable to fulfill it, and therefore was it at the tenth hour that our Lord heard Himself called, Rabbi; none but the giver of the law is the teacher of the law.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Cuius autem gratia alterius nomen non ponitur? Quidam dicunt, propterea quia hic qui scribit est qui secutus est eum. Quidam vero dicunt, quod ille alius non insignis erat: quae igitur utilitas si didicerimus nomen illius? Neque enim septuaginta duorum discipulorum nomina Evangelista posuit. CHRYS. One of the two which heard John speak and followed Him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Why is the other name left out? Some say, because this Evangelist himself was that other. Others, that it was a disciple of no eminence, and that there was no use in telling his name any more than those of the seventy-two, which are omitted.
Alcuinus: Vel duo discipuli qui secuti sunt Iesum, sunt Andreas et Philippus. ALCUIN. Or it would seem that the two disciples who followed Jesus were Andrew and Philip.

Lectio 25
41 εὑρίσκει οὗτος πρῶτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν ἴδιον Σίμωνα καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, εὑρήκαμεν τὸν μεσσίαν ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Χριστός: 42 ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου: σὺ κληθήσῃ κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.
41. He first finds his own brother Simon, and said to him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jonas: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Andreas quae a Iesu didicit non detinuit apud seipsum; sed festinat, et currit cito ad fratrem, traditurus ei bona quae suscepit; unde dicitur invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem, et dixit ei: invenimus Messiam (quod est interpretatum Christus). CHRYS. Andrew kept not our Lord’s words to himself; but ran in haste to his brother, to report the good tidings: He first finds his own brother Simon, and said to him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
Beda: Hoc est enim vere dominum invenire, vera illius dilectione fervere, fraternae quoque salutis curam gerere. BEDE. This is truly to find the Lord; viz. to have fervent love for Him, together with a care for our brother’s salvation.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Et quidem non dixerat Evangelista quae Christus fuerat sequentibus se locutus; sed ex his quae hic dicuntur licet addiscere. Quaecumque enim Andreas didicit, in brevi ostendit, magistri virtutem, qui persuaserat eis, et eorum desiderium quod prius habuerant, repraesentans: hoc enim verbum invenimus, est patientis pressuram propter absentiam et exultantis postquam apparuit quod expectabatur. CHRYS. The Evangelist does not mention what Christ said to those who followed Him; but we may infer it from what follows. Andrew declares in few words what he had learnt, discloses the power of that Master Who had persuaded them, and his own previous longings after Him. For this exclamation, We have found, expresses a longing for His coming, turned to exultation, now that He was really come.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Messias autem Hebraice, Graece Christus, Latine unctus dicitur: chrisma enim unctio est: ille autem singulariter unctus est: unde omnes Christiani unguntur, secundum quod in Psal. 44 dicitur: unxit te Deus Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis: participes enim eius sunt omnes sancti; sed ille est singulariter sanctus, et singulariter unctus. AUG. Messias in Hebrew, Christus in Greek, Unctus in Latin. Chrism is unction, and He had a special unction, which from Him extended to all Christians, as appears in the Psalm, God, even Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. All holy persons are partakers with Him; but He is specially the Holy of Holies, specially anointed.
Chrysostomus: Et ideo non dixit Messiam simpliciter, sed cum adiectione articuli. Considera vero ex ipso principio obedientem Petri mentem: confestim enim cucurrit nihil tardans; unde sequitur et adduxit eum ad Iesum. Sed nullus facilitatem ei imponat, si non prius multa perquirens ita sermonem suscepit; conveniens enim est, et fratrem diligentius ei dixisse hoc, et per longa verba; sed Evangelistae ubique multa intermittunt, breviloquii curam habentes. Aliter autem neque dictum est quoniam credidit simpliciter, sed quoniam duxit eum ad Iesum, illum ei de quo dixerat traditurus, ut omnia ab illo discat. Ipse autem dominus incipit revelare ea quae deitatis sunt, et paulatim ea aperire praedicationibus. Non enim minus quam signa, prophetiae adducunt: hoc enim est maxime opus Dei, quod neque imitari Daemones possunt: nam in miraculis quidem et phantasia fit utique; futura autem praedicere cum certitudine, illius solius incorruptibilis est naturae; unde sequitur intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit: tu es Simon filius Ioanna; tu vocaberis Cephas (quod interpretatur Petrus). CHRYS. And therefore he said not Messias, but the Messias. Mark the obedience of Peter from the very first; he went immediately without delay, as appears from the next words: And he brought him to Jesus. Nor let us blame him as too yielding, because he did not ask many questions, before he received the word. It is reasonable to suppose that his brother had told him all, and sufficiently fully; but the Evangelists often make omissions for the sake of brevity. But, besides this, it is not absolutely said that he did believe, but only, He took him to Jesus; i.e. to learn from the mouth of Jesus Himself, what Andrew had reported. Our Lord begins now Himself to reveal the things of His Divinity, and to exhibit them gradually by prophecy. For prophecies are no less persuasive than miracles; inasmuch as they are preeminently God’s work, and are beyond the power of devils to imitate, while miracles may be fantasy or appearance: the foretelling future events with certainty is an attribute of the incorruptible nature alone: And when Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Beda: Intuitus autem est eum non exterioribus oculis solum, sed et aeterno divinitatis intuitu vidit cordis eius simplicitatem, animi sublimitatem, cuius merito cunctae esset praeferendus Ecclesiae. Neque autem in Petri vocabulo, quasi Hebraeo vel Syro, aliam interpretationem quaerere oportet: quia idem est Graece et Latine Petrus, quod Syriace Cephas; et in utraque lingua nomen a petra derivatur. Vocatur autem Petrus ob firmitatem fidei, qua illi petrae adhaesit de qua apostolus ait: petra autem erat Christus; qui sperantes in se ab hostis insidiis reddit tutos, et spiritualium charismatum fluenta ministrat. BEDE. He beheld him not with His natural eye only, but by the insight of His Godhead discerned from eternity the simplicity and greatness of his soul, for which he was to be elevated above the whole Church. In the word Peter, we must not look for any additional meaning, as though it were of Hebrew or Syriac derivation; for the Greek and Latin word Peter, has the same meaning as Cephas; being in both languages derived from petra. He is called Peter on account of the firmness of his faith, in cleaving to that Rock, of which the Apostle speaks, And that Rock was Christ; which secures those who trust in it from the snares of the enemy, and dispenses streams of spiritual gifts.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Non est autem magnum quia dominus dixit cuius filius esset iste: omnia enim nomina sanctorum suorum sciebat, quos ante constitutionem mundi praedestinavit. Illud autem magnum quia mutavit ei nomen, et fecit de Simone Petrum. Petrus autem a petra; petra vero Ecclesia: ergo in Petri nomine figurata est Ecclesia. Et quis securus est, nisi qui aedificat supra petram? Intentum autem te fecit dominus: nam si antea Petrus vocaretur, non ita videres mysterium petrae, et putares casu eum sic vocari, non providentia Dei. Ideo eum voluit aliud prius vocari, ut ex ipsa commutatione nominis, sacramenti vivacitas commendaretur. AUG. There was nothing very great in our Lord saying whose son he was, for our Lord knew the names of all His saints, having predestinated them before the foundation of the world. But it was a great thing for our Lord to change his name from Simon to Peter. Peter is from petra, rock, which rock is the Church: so that the name of Peter represents the Church. And who is safe, unless he build upon a rock? Our Lord here rouses our attention: for had he been called Peter before, we should not have seen the mystery of the Rock, and should have thought that he was called so by chance, and not providentially. God therefore made him to be called by another name before, that the change of that name might give vividness to the mystery.
Chrysostomus: Ideo etiam nomen mutavit, ut ostendat quia ipse est qui vetus testamentum dedit et nomina transmutavit, qui Abram Abraham vocavit, et Sarai Saram, et Iacob Israelem. Igitur multis quidem et a nativitate nomina imposuit, ut Isaac et Samson; aliis autem post eam quae a progenitoribus est nuncupationem, ut Petro et filiis Zebedaei: nam quibus quidem a prima aetate debebat virtus clarescere, ex tunc nomina susceperunt; quibus autem postea debebat augeri, postea nuncupatio posita est. CHRYS. He changed the name too to show that He was the same who done so before in the Old Testament; who had called Abram Abraham, Sarai Sarah, Jacob Israel. Many He had named from their birth, as Isaac and Samson; others again after being named by their parents, as were Peter, and the sons of Zebedee. Those whose virtue was to be eminent from the first, have names given them from the first; those who were to be exalted afterwards, are named afterwards.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Non autem parva repugnantia potest putari si iuxta Iordanem, antequam Iesus isset in Galilaeam, ad testimonium Ioannis Baptistae secuti sunt eum duo, quorum unus erat Andreas, qui fratrem suum Simonem adduxit ad Iesum; quando et nomen ut Petrus nominaretur accepit; cum ab aliis Evangelistis dicatur, quod eos in Galilaea piscantes invenerit, atque ad discipulatum vocaverit: nisi quia intelligendum est, non sic eos vidisse dominum iuxta Iordanem ut ei iam inseparabiliter inhaererent; sed tantum cognovisse qui esset, eumque miratos ad propria remeasse. Non autem quis arbitretur quod tunc Petrus nomen accepit, ubi ait illi dominus: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; sed ubi commemoratur ei dictum esse tu vocaberis Cephas (quod interpretatur Petrus). AUG. The account A here of the two disciples on the Jordan, who follow Christ (before he had gone into Galilee) in obedience to John’s testimony; viz. of Andrew bringing his brother Simon to Jesus, who gave him, on this occasion, the name of Peter; disagrees considerably with the account of the other Evangelists, viz. that our Lord found these two, Simon and Andrew, fishing in Galilee, and then bid them follow Him: unless we understand that they did not regularly join our Lord when they saw Him on the Jordan; but only discovered who He was, and full of wonder, then returned to their occupations. Nor must we think that Peter first received his name on the occasion mentioned in Matthew, when our Lord says, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church; but rather when our Lord says, You shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Alcuinus: Vel aliter. Nondum imponit ei nomen, sed praesignat quod postea fuit ei impositum, quando dixit ei Iesus: tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Mutaturus autem nomen Christus, voluit ostendere etiam nomen illud quod a parentibus datum erat, non carere virtutis significatione. Simon enim obediens interpretatur, Ioanna gratia, Iona columba; quasi dicat: tu es obediens, filius gratiae, vel filius columbae, idest spiritus sancti: quia humilitatem de spiritu sancto accepisti, ut vocante Andrea, videre me desiderares. Non enim dedignatus est maior minorem sequi: quia non est ordo aetatis ubi est meritum fidei. ALCUIN. Or perhaps He does not actually give him the name now, but only fixes beforehand what He afterwards gave him when He said, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church. And while about to change his name, Christ wishes to show that even that which his parents had given him, was not without a meaning. For Simon signifies obedience, Joanna grace, Jona a dove: as if the meaning was; You are an obedient son of grace, or of the dove, i.e. the Holy Spirit; for you have received of the Holy Spirit the humility, to desire, at Andrew’s call, to see Me. The elder disdained not to follow the younger; for where there is meritorious faith, there is no order of seniority.

Lectio 26
43 τῇ ἐπαύριον ἠθέλησεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν γαλιλαίαν, καὶ εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἀκολούθει μοι. 44 ἦν δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ βηθσαϊδά, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου. 45 εὑρίσκει Φίλιππος τὸν Ναθαναὴλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, ὃν ἔγραψεν μωϋσῆς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καὶ οἱ προφῆται εὑρήκαμεν, Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ. 46 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ δύναταί τι ἀγαθὸν εἶναι; λέγει αὐτῷ [ὁ] Φίλιππος, ἔρχου καὶ ἴδε.
43. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and finds Philip, and said to him, Follow me. 44. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45. Philip finds Nathaniel, and said to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. 46. And Nathaniel said to him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Postquam accepit Christus hos discipulos, venit de reliquo ad alios convertendum, scilicet Philippum et Nathanaelem; unde dicitur in crastinum autem voluit exire in Galilaeam. CHRYS. After gaining these disciples, Christ proceeded to convert others, viz. Philip and Nathanael: The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee.
Alcuinus: A Iudaea scilicet, ubi erat Ioannes baptizans, deferens honorem Baptistae, ne videatur magisterium eius minuere, dum adhuc statum habet. Vocaturus etiam discipulum ad sequendum, voluit exire in Galilaeam, idest in transmigrationem factam vel revelationem; ut sicut ipse proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines, et sicut passus est et resurrexit, et ita intravit in gloriam suam; sic etiam suos sequaces ostenderet et exire et proficere in virtutibus, et per passiones ad gaudia transmigrare debere; unde sequitur et invenit Philippum, et dicit ei Iesus: sequere me. Sequitur qui imitatur humilitatem et passionem eius, ut sit socius resurrectionis et ascensionis. ALCUIN. Leaving, that is, Judea, where John was baptizing, out of respect to the Baptist, and not to appear to lower his office, so long as it continued. He was going too to call a disciple, and wished to go forth into Galilee, i.e. to a place of “transition” or “revelation,” that is to say, that as He Himself increased in wisdom or stature, and in favor with God and man, and as He suffered and rose again, and entered into His glory: so He would teach His followers to go forth, and increase in virtue, and pass through suffering to joy. He finds Philip, and said to him, Follow Me. Everyone follows Jesus who imitates His humility and suffering, in order to be partaker of His resurrection and ascension.
Chrysostomus: Et vide quod antequam aliquis ei adhaereret, nullum vocavit: nam si quidem nullo iam sponte adveniente attraxisset, fortassis resiliissent: nunc autem a seipsis eligentes sequi dominum, firmi de reliquo permanserunt. Philippum autem vocat, magis notum ei existentem, quia in Galilaea nutritus erat. Sed unde Philippus secutus est Christum? Nam Andreas quidem audiens a Ioanne Baptista, Petrus autem ab Andrea; hic autem a nullo aliquid discens, solum dicente Christo ad eum sequere me, confestim persuasus est. Conveniens est autem Philippum a Ioanne audientem sequi Christum, vel etiam vocem Christi hoc operatam esse. CHRYS. Observe, He did not call them, before some had of their own accord joined Him: for had He invited them, before any had joined Him, perhaps they would have started back: but now having determined to follow of their own free choice, they remain firm ever after. He calls Philip, however, because he would be known to him, from living in Galilee. But what made Philip follow Christ? Andrew heard from John the Baptist, and Peter from Andrew; he had heard from no one, and yet on Christ saying, Follow Me, was persuaded instantly. It is not improbable that Philip may have heard John: and yet it may have been the mere voice of Christ which produced this effect.
Theophylactus: Non enim simpliciter omnibus vox Christi dicebatur, sed fidelium interiora ad eius inflammabat amorem: deinde quia in corde Philippi de Christo cogitatio inerat, et in libris Moysi assidua lectio, ut expectaret Christum, statim cum vidit, credidit. Forte autem ab Andrea et Petro de Christo aliquid didicit, quia ex eadem patria erant; quod Evangelista videtur innuere per hoc quod subdit erat autem Philippus a Bethsaida civitate Andreae et Petri. THEOPHYL. For the voice of Christ sounded not like a common voice to some, that is, the faithful, but kindled in their inmost soul the love of Him. Philip having been continually meditating on Christ, and reading the books of Moses, so confidently expected Him, that the instant he saw, he believed. Perhaps too he had heard of Him from Andrew and Peter, coming from the same district; an explanation which the Evangelist seems to hint at, when he adds, Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
Chrysostomus: Christus etiam hinc suam virtutem ostendit, quod a terra nullum ferente fructum, nam a Galilaea propheta non surgit, inclytos discipulos elegit. CHRYS. The power of Christ appears by His gathering fruit out of a barren country. For form that Galilee, out of which there arises no prophet, He takes His most distinguished disciples.
Alcuinus: Bethsaida etiam domus venatorum interpretatur; quo nomine civitatis curavit Evangelista ostendere quales tunc iam animo erant Philippus, Petrus et Andreas, et quales officio erant futuri, idest capiendis ad vitam animabus intenti. ALCUIN. Bethsaida means house of hunters. The Evangelist introduces the name of this place by way of allusion to the characters of Philip, Peter, and Andrew, and their future office, i.e. catching and saving souls.
Chrysostomus: Non solum autem Philippus a Christo persuasus est, sed praeco aliis fit; unde sequitur invenit Philippus Nathanael, et dicit ei: quem scripsit Moyses in lege et prophetae, invenimus Iesum filium Ioseph a Nazareth. Vide qualiter sollicitam mentem habebat, et continue meditabatur quae sunt Moysi, et expectabat adventum Christi. Et quidem quod Christus debebat venire, noverat prius; quoniam autem hic Christus erat, ignorabat. Dicit autem quem scripsit Moyses et prophetae, credibilem faciens suam praedicationem, et ex hinc persuadens auditorem quod circa legem et prophetas sollicitus erat, et omnia perscrutans cum veritate ut et Christus testatus est. Si vero dicit filium Ioseph, ne turberis: eius enim filius aestimabatur esse. CHRYS. Philip is not persuaded himself, but begins preaching to others: Philip finds Nathanael, and said to him, We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph. See how zealous he is, and how constantly he is meditating on the books of Moses, and looking for Christ’s coming. That Christ was coming he had known before; but he did not know that this was the Christ, of whom Moses and the Prophets did write: He says this to give credibility to his preaching, and to show his zeal for the Law and the Prophets, and how that he had examined them attentively. Be not disturbed at his calling our Lord the Son of Joseph; this was what He was supposed to be.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Cui scilicet desponsata erat mater eius: nam quod ea intacta conceptus et natus sit, bene noverunt ex Evangelio omnes Christiani. Addit autem et locum: a Nazareth. AUG. The person to whom our Lord’s mother had been betrothed. The Christians know from the Gospel, that He was conceived and born of an undefiled mother. He adds the place too, of Nazareth.
Theophylactus: Non quia in ea natus erat, sed nutritus. Generatio enim eius multis erat incognita; sed quod in Nazareth esset nutritus, cognitum erat. Et dixit ei Nathanael: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? THEOPHYL. He was bred up there: the place of His birth could not have been known generally, but all knew that He was bred up in Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth.
Augustinus: Ambas pronuntiationes potest consequens vox Philippi sequi: sive sic pronunties, tamquam confirmans: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse: et ille dicat veni et vide; sive sicut dubitans, et totum interrogans: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Veni et vide. Cum ergo sive illo modo, sive isto pronuntietur, non repugnent verba sequentia, nostrum est quaerere quid potius intelligamus in his verbis. Nathanael enim doctissimus legis, cum audisset Philippum dicentem invenimus Iesum, audito a Nazareth, erectus est in spem, et dixit a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse. Scrutatus enim erat Scripturas, et sciebat, quod non facile alii Scribae et Pharisaei noverant, quia inde erat expectandus salvator. AUG. However you may understand these words, Philip’s answer wild suit. You may read it either as affirmatory, Something good can come out of Nazareth; to which the other says, Come and see: or you may read it as a question, implying doubt on Nathanael’s part, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Come and see. Since either way of reading agrees equally with what follows, we must inquire the meaning of the passage. Nathanael was well read in the Law, and therefore the word Nazareth (Philip having said that he had found Jesus of Nazareth) immediately raises his hopes, and he exclaims, Something good can come out of Nazareth. He had searched the Scriptures, and knew, what the Scribes and Pharisees could not, that the Savior was to be expected thence.
Alcuinus: Qui singulariter sanctus est, innocens, impollutus; de quo propheta: exiet virga de radice Iesse, et Nazaraeus (idest flos) de radice eius ascendet. Vel potest hic versiculus sub dubitatione interrogative proferri. ALCUIN. He who alone is absolutely holy, harmless, undefiled; of whom the prophet said, There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch (Nazaraus) shall grow out of his roots. Or the words may be taken as expressing doubt, and asking the question.
Chrysostomus: Audiverat enim Nathanael a Scripturis quod a Bethlehem oporteret Christum venire, secundum illud: et tu, Bethlehem terra Iuda, ex te exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. Cum igitur audivit a Nazareth, dubitavit, non inveniens convenire enuntiationem Philippi cum prophetica praedicatione. Nazaraeum autem vocant prophetae ab educatione et conversatione. Considera vero eius in inquirendo prudentiam et mansuetudinem: non enim dixit: decipis me, Philippe; sed interrogat dicens a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Valde autem et Philippus prudens erat; non enim interrogatus frangitur, sed immoratur, virum volens ducere ad Christum; unde sequitur dicit ei Philippus: veni et vide. Trahit quidem eum ad Christum, sciens de reliquo eum non contradicturum, si verba et doctrinam illius gustaverit. CHRYS. Nathanael knew from the Scriptures, that Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to the prophecy of Micah, And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, - out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. On hearing of Nazareth, then, he doubted, and was not able to reconcile Philip’s tidings with prophecy. For the Prophets call Him a Nazarene, only in reference to His education and mode of life. Observe, however, the discretion and gentleness with which he communicates his doubts. He does not say, You deceive me, Philip; but simply asks the question, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip too in turn is equally discrete. He is not confounded by the question, but dwells upon it, and lingers in the hope of bringing him to Christ: Philip said to him, Come and see. He takes him to Christ, knowing that when he had once tasted of His words and doctrine, he will make no more resistance.

Lectio 27
47 εἶδεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὸν Ναθαναὴλ ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἴδε ἀληθῶς Ἰσραηλίτης ἐν ᾧ δόλος οὐκ ἔστιν. 48 λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, πόθεν με γινώσκεις; ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε. 49 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. 50 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ὅτι εἶπόν σοι ὅτι εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς πιστεύεις; μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ. 51 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὄψεσθε τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαίνοντας ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
47. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! 48. Nathanael said to him, Whence know you me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. 49. Nathanael answered and said to him, Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel. 50. Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, believe you? you shall see greater things than these. 51. And he said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Nathanael non suscipiendo ex Nazareth Christum esse, eam quae illi erat circa Scripturas diligentiam ostendit; in non respuendo vero eum qui annuntiaverat, multum desiderium quod habebat circa Christi praesentiam monstravit. Sciebat enim quod poterat Philippus circa locum falli; unde sequitur vidit Iesus Nathanael venientem ad se, et dicit de eo: ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: quia nihil ad gratiam vel odium loquebatur. CHRYS. Nathanael, in difficulty as to Christ coming out of Nazareth, showed the care with which he had read the Scriptures: his not rejecting the tidings when brought him, showed his strong desire for Christ’s coming. He thought that Philip might be mistaken as to the place. It follows, Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! There was no fault to be found with him, though he had spoken like one who did not believe, because he was more deeply read in the Prophets than Philip. He calls him guileless, because he had said nothing to gain favor, or gratify malice.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Quid est in quo dolus non est? Forte non habebat peccatum? Forte illi medicus non erat necessarius? Absit. Nemo sic natus est ut medico illo non egeret. Dolus enim est cum aliud agitur, et aliud fingitur: quo modo ergo in illo dolus non erat, si peccator est? Fatetur se peccatorem; si enim peccator est et iustum se dicit, dolus est in ore ipsius. Ergo in Nathanaele confessionem peccati laudavit, non indicavit non esse peccatorem. AUG. What means this, In whom is no guile? Had he no sin? Was no physician necessary for him? Far from it. No one was ever born, of a temper not to need the Physician. It is guile, when we say one thing, and think another. How then was there no guile in him? Because, if he was as a sinner, he confessed his sin; whereas if a man, being a sinner, pretends to be righteous, there is guile in his mouth. Our Lord then commended the confession of sin in Nathanael; He did not pronounce him not a sinner.
Theophylactus: Sed Nathanael laudatus non acquievit extemplo, sed expectavit, adhuc volens aliquid manifestius discere; et interrogat; sequitur enim dicit ei Nathanael: unde me nosti? THEOPHYL. Nathanael however, notwithstanding this praise, does not acquiesce immediately, but waits for further evidence, and asks, Whence know You me?
Chrysostomus: Ipse quidem igitur ut homo investigabat, Iesus autem ut Deus respondebat: sequitur enim respondit Iesus et dixit ei: priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te: non ut homo eum intuens, sed ut Deus desuper cognoscens. Vidi, inquit, te, idest morum tuorum mansuetudinem. Dicit autem cum esses sub ficu: quoniam nullus ibi erat, sed soli Philippus et Nathanael singulariter loquebantur: propter hoc dictum est quod videns eum a longe dixit ecce vere Israelita; ut scires quoniam antequam appropinquaret Philippus, haec loquebatur Christus, et insuspicabile fiat Christi testimonium. Noluit autem Christus dicere: non sum ex Nazareth, ut annuntiavit tibi Philippus; sed ex Bethlehem, ut non faceret altercabilem sermonem; neque etiam per hoc dedisset argumentum sufficiens quod ipse esset Christus; sed ostendit se Christum per hoc quod praesens erat loquentibus illis. CHRYS. He asks as man, Jesus answers as God: Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you: not having, beheld him as man, but as God discerning him from above. I saw you, He says, that is, the character of the life, when you were under the fig tree: where the two, Philip and Nathanael, had been talking together alone, nobody, seeing them; and on this account it is said, that on seeing him a long way off, He said, Behold an Israelite indeed; whence it appears that this speech was before Philip came near, so that no suspicion could attach to Christ’s testimony. Christ would not say, I am not of Nazareth, as Philip told you, but of Bethlehem; in order to avoid an argument: and because it would not have been sufficient proof, had He mentioned it, of His being the Christ. He preferred rather proving this by His having been present at their conversation.
Augustinus: Quaerendum est enim an aliquid significet arbor fici. Invenimus arborem fici maledictam, quia sola folia habuit, et fructu caruit. In origine humani generis Adam et Eva, cum peccavissent, de foliis ficus subcinctoria sibi fecerunt. Folia ergo ficulneae intelliguntur peccata. Erat autem Nathanael sub arbore fici, tamquam sub umbra mortis; ac si dominus ei dicat: o Israel, sine dolo quisquis es, o popule Iudaeus ex fide, antequam te per apostolos meos vocarem, et cum esses sub umbra mortis, et tu me non videres, ego te vidi. AUG. Has this fig tree any meaning? We read of one fig tree which was cursed, because it had only leaves, and no fruit. Again, at the creation, Adam and Eve, after sinning, made themselves aprons of fig leaves. Fig leaves then signify sins; and Nathanael, when he was under the fig tree, was under the shadow of death: so that our Lord seems to say, O Israel, whoever of you is without guile, O people of the Jewish faith, before that I called you by My Apostles, when you were as yet under the shadow of death, and saw Me not, I saw you.
Gregorius Moralium: Vel cum esses sub ficu, vidi te; idest, positum te sub umbra legis elegi. GREG. When you were under the fig tree, I saw you; i.e. when you were yet under the shade of the law, I chose you.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Recordatus est autem Nathanael se fuisse sub ficu ubi non erat Christus praesentia corporali, sed scientia spirituali; et quia sciebat se solum fuisse sub ficu, agnovit in illo divinitatem. AUG. Nathanael remembered that he had been under the fig tree, where Christ was not present corporeally, but only by His spiritual knowledge. Hence, knowing that he had been alone, he recognized our Lord’s Divinity.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sic ergo ab hac praedicatione, et ab eo quod mentem scrutatus est eius, et quia cum adversus eum dicere videretur, non culpavit, sed laudavit, cognovit quoniam vere est Christus; unde sequitur respondit ei Nathanael, et ait: Rabbi, tu es filius Dei, tu es rex Israel; quasi dicat: tu es qui expectabaris, tu es qui quaerebaris. Quia enim argumentum inaltercabile suscepit, venit ad confessionem, et in mora priori diligentiam ostendens, et in posteriori confessione devotionem. Multi autem legentium sermonem hunc anxiantur: Petrus enim qui post miracula et doctrinam confessus est, quoniam filius est Dei, beatificatur, ut a patre revelationem iam suscipiens; Nathanael autem ante signa et doctrinam hoc dicens, nihil tale audivit. Est igitur huius causa, quoniam verba quidem eadem locutus est Petrus et Nathanael, non autem eadem mente; sed Petrus quidem confessus est filium Dei ut Deum verum; hic autem ut hominem nudum; dicens enim ei tu es filius Dei, induxit tu es rex Israel; Dei autem filius non Israelis est rex solum, sed et orbis terrarum universi. Hoc etiam manifestum est ex his quae consequuntur. Nam Petro nihil postea addidit Christus: sed quasi perfecta eius existente fide, Ecclesiam se dixit in confessione illius fabricaturum esse. Nathanael autem, quasi multa parte et maiori confessionis deficiente, ad maiora educitur; nam sequitur et dixit ei: quia dixi tibi: vidi te sub ficu, credis: maius his videbis; quasi dicat: magnum tibi visum est hoc esse quod dixi, et propterea me regem Israelis confessus es: quid igitur dices cum maius videbis? Et quid sit istud maius, ostendit subdens et dicit eis: amen, amen dico vobis, videbitis caelum apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Vide qualiter paulatim eum a terra abducit, et facit quod non ultra aestimet Christum esse hominem solum: cui enim Angeli ministrant, qualiter hic homo purus esset? Per hoc igitur suadet Angelorum se esse dominatorem: sicut enim in proprium regis filium descenderunt et ascenderunt in eum ministri regales; hoc quidem in tempore crucis, hoc vero in tempore resurrectionis et ascensionis; sed et ante hoc, quando accesserunt et ministrabant ei, et quando evangelizabant eius nativitatem. Futurum vero a praeterito probavit; qui enim in praeteritis virtutem eius agnoverat, et de futuris audiens facilius suscepit. CHRYS. That our Lord then had this knowledge, had penetrated into his mind, had not blamed but praised his hesitation, proved to Nathanael that He was the true Christ: Nathanael answered and said to Him, Rabbi, You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel: as if he said, You are He who was expected, you are He who was sought for. Sure proof being obtained, he proceeds to make confession; herein showing his devotion, as his former hesitation had shown his diligence. ID. Many when they read this passage, are perplexed at finding that, whereas Peter was pronounced blessed for having, after our Lord’s miracles and teaching, confessed Him to be the Son of God, Nathanael, who makes the same confession before, has no such benediction. The reason is this. Peter and Nathanael both used the same words, l but not in the same meaning. Peter confessed our Lord to he the Son of God, in the sense of very God; the latter in the sense of mere man; for after saying, You are the Son of God, he adds, You are the King of Israel; whereas the Son of God was not the King of Israel only, but of the whole world. This is manifest from what follows. For in the case of Peter Christ added nothing, but, as if his faith were perfect, said, that he would build the Church upon his confession; whereas Nathanael, as if his confession were very deficient, is led up to higher things: Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to you, I saw you under the fig tree, believe you? You shall see greater things than these. As if He said, What I have just said has appeared a great matter to you, and you have confessed Me to be King of Israel; what will you say when you see greater things than these? What that greater thing is He proceeds to show: And He said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. See how He raises him from earth for a while, and forces him to think that Christ is not a mere man: for how could He be a mere man, whom angels ministered to? It was, as, as it were, saying, that He was Lord of the Angels; for He must be the King’s own Son, on whom the servants of the King descended and ascended; descended at His crucifixion, ascended at His resurrection and ascension. Angels too before this came and ministered to Him, and angels brought the glad tidings of His birth. Our Lord made the present a proof of the future. After the powers He had already shown, Nathanael would readily believe that much more would follow.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Recolamus autem veterem historiam, quando Iacob in somniis vidit scalam a terra pertingentem usque in caelum, et dominus incumbebat super eam, et Angeli ascendebant et descendebant per eam. Denique ipse Iacob quia intellexit quid viderit, posuit lapidem et fudit oleum: dum unxit lapidem Iacob, numquid idolum fecit? Significavit, non adoravit. Agnoscitis chrisma, agnoscite et Christum. Ipse est lapis quem reprobaverunt aedificantes. Si ergo Iacob vidit scalam, qui est Israel appellatus, et Nathanael iste vere Israelita erat; convenienter somnium Iacob dominus dixit ei; quasi dicat: cuius nomine te appellavi, ipsius somnium in te apparuit: videbis enim caelum apertum, et Angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Si autem ad illum descendunt, et ad illum ascendunt, et sursum est, et hic est: sursum in se, deorsum in suis. AUG. Let us recollect the Old Testament account. Jacob saw in a dream a ladder reaching from earth to heaven; the Lord resting upon it, and the angels ascending and descending upon it. Lastly, Jacob himself understanding what the vision meant, set up a stone, and poured oil upon it. When he anointed the stone, did he make an idol? No: he only set up a symbol, not an object of worship You see here the anointing; see the Anointed also. He is the stone which the builders refused. If Jacob, who was named Israel, saw the ladder, and Nathanael was an Israelite indeed, there was a fitness in our Lord telling him Jacob’s dream; as if he said, Whose name you are called by, his dream has appeared to you: for you shall see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. If they descend upon Him, and ascend to Him, then He is both up above and here below at the same time; above in Himself, below in His members.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sunt autem Angeli Dei boni praedicatores praedicantes Christum; hoc est super filium hominis ascendunt et descendunt, sicut Paulus, qui ascenderat usque ad tertium caelum, descendit usque ad lac potum parvulis dandum. Dixit autem maius his videbis; quia plus est quod nos dominus vocatos iustificavit, quam quod vidit iacentes sub umbra mortis. Quid enim nobis proderat, si ibi mansissemus ubi nos vidit? Quaeritur autem quare Nathanael, cui tantum testimonium perhibuit filius Dei, inter duodecim apostolos non invenitur? Intelligere autem debemus, ipsum eruditum fuisse et peritum legis: propterea noluit illum dominus inter discipulos ponere, quia idiotas elegit, unde confunderet mundum. Volens enim superborum frangere cervices, non quaesivit per oratorem piscatorem; sed de piscatore lucratus est imperatorem. Magnus Cyprianus orator; sed prius Petrus piscator; per quem postea crederet non tantum orator, sed etiam imperator. AUG. Good preachers, however, who preach Christ, are as angels of God; i.e. they ascend and descend upon the Son of man; as Paul, who ascended to the third heaven, and descended so far even as to give milk to babes. He said, We shall see greater things than these: because it is a greater thing that our Lord has justified us, whom He has called, than that He saw us lying under the shadow of death. For had we remained where He saw us, what profit would it have been? It is asked why Nathanael, to whom our Lord bears such testimony, is not found among the twelve Apostles. We may believe, however, that it was because he was so learned, and versed in the law, that our Lord had not put him among the disciples. He chose the foolish, to confound the world. Intending to break the neck of the proud, He sought not to gain the fisherman through the orator, but by the fisherman the emperor. The great Cyprian was an orator; but Peter was a fisherman before him; and through him not only the orator, but the emperor, believed.

CHAPTER II
Lectio 1
1 καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ: 2 ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον. 3 καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν, οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν. 4 [καὶ] λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου.
1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, They have no wine. 4. Jesus said to her, Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quoniam in Galilaea notus erat dominus, vocant eum ad nuptias; unde sequitur et die tertia nuptiae factae sunt in Cana Galilaeae. CHRYS. Our Lord being known in Galilee, they invite Him to a marriage: And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee.
Alcuinus: Galilaea est provincia, in qua est Cana viculus. ALCUIN. Galilee is a province; Cana a village in it.
Chrysostomus: Vocant autem ad nuptias dominum, non tamquam magnificum aliquem, sed simpliciter tamquam notum, et unum multorum: unde hoc Evangelista declarans ait et erat mater Iesu ibi: sicut enim matrem vocaverant, ita et filium; unde sequitur vocatus est autem Iesus et discipuli eius ad nuptias: et accedit; neque enim ad dignitatem respiciebat suam, sed ad beneficium nostrum. Qui enim non dedignatus est formam servi accipere, neque dedignatus est ad nuptias venire servorum. CHRYS. They invite our Lord to the marriage, not as a great person, but merely as one they knew, one of the many; for which reason the Evangelist says, And the mother of Jesus was there. As they invited the mother, so they invited the Son: and therefore, Jesus was called, and His disciples to the marriage: and He came, as caring more for our good, shall His own dignity. He who disdained not to take upon Him the form of a servant, disdained not to come to the marriage of servants.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Erubescat igitur homo esse superbus, quoniam factus est humilis Deus. Ecce inter cetera filius virginis venit ad nuptias, qui cum apud patrem esset, instituit nuptias. AUG. Let the proud man blush to see the humility of God. Lo, among other things, the Son of the Virgin comes to a marriage; He who, when He was with the Father, instituted marriage.
Beda: Quod etiam ad nuptias venire dignatus est, iuxta litteram, fidem recte credentium confirmat. Porro Tatiani et Marcionis, ceterorumque qui nuptiis detrahunt, perfidia quam sit damnabilis insinuat. Si enim toro immaculato et nuptiis debita castitate celebratis culpa inesset, nequaquam dominus ad has venire voluisset. Nunc autem quia bona est castitas coniugalis, melior continentia vidualis, optima perfectio virginalis, ad probandam omnium electionem graduum, discernendum tamen meritum singulorum, ex intemerato Mariae virginis utero nasci dignatus est; e prophetico viduae Annae ore mox natus benedicitur; a nuptiarum celebratoribus iam iuvenis invitatus, has praesentia suae virtutis honorat. BEDE. His condescension in coming to the marriage, and the miracle He wrought there, are, even considering them in the letter only, a strong confirmation of the a faith. Therein too are condemned the errors of Tatian, Marcion, and others who detract from the honor of marriage. For if the undefiled bed, and the marriage celebrated with due chastity, partook at all of sin, our Lord would never have come to one. Whereas now, conjugal chastity being good, the continence of widows better, the perfection of the virgin state best, to sanction all these degrees, but distinguish the merit of each, He deigned to be born of the pure womb of the Virgin; was blessed after birth by the prophetic voice of the widow Anna; and now invited in manhood to attend the celebration of a marriage, honors that also by the presence of His goodness.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quid autem mirum, si in illam domum ad nuptias venit qui in hunc mundum ad nuptias venit? Habet enim hic sponsam, quam redemit sanguine suo, et cui pignus dedit spiritum sanctum, quam sibi coniunxerat in utero virginis. Verbum enim est sponsus, et sponsa caro humana; et utrumque unus filius Dei, et idem filius hominis. Ille uterus virginis Mariae thalamus eius est, unde processit tamquam sponsus de thalamo suo. AUG. What marvel, if He went to that house to a marriage, Who came into this world to a marriage. For here He has His spouse whom He redeemed with His own blood, to whom He gave the pledge of the Spirit, and whom He united to Himself in the womb of the Virgin. For the Word is the Bridegroom, and human flesh the bride, and both together are one Son of God and Son of man. That womb of the Virgin Mary is His chamber, from which he went forth as a bridegroom.
Beda: Nec vacat a mysterio quod die tertia nuptiae factae referuntur. Primum quidem saeculi tempus ante legem, patriarcharum exemplo; secundum sub lege, prophetarum scriptis; tertium sub gratia, praeconiis Evangelistarum, quasi tertiae diei luce, mundo refulsit, in quo dominus in carne natus apparuit. Sed et hoc quod in Cana Galilaeae, idest in zelo transmigrationis, eaedem nuptiae factae perhibentur, typice denuntiat, eos maxime gratia Christi dignos existere qui zelo fervere piae devotionis, ac de vitiis ad virtutes, de terrenis ad aeterna norunt transmigrare. Discumbente autem ad nuptias domino, vinum defecit, ut vino meliore per ipsum facto manifestaretur gloria latentis in homine Dei; unde sequitur et deficiente vino, dicit mater Iesu ad eum: vinum non habent. BEDE. Nor is it without some mysterious allusion, that the marriage is related as taking place on the third day. The first age of the world, before the giving of the Law, was enlightened by the example of the Patriarchs; the second, under the Law, by the writings of the Prophets; the third, under grace, by the preaching of the Evangelists, as if by the light of the third day; for our Lord had now appeared in the flesh. The name of the place too where the marriage was held, Cana of Galilee, which means, desire of migrating, has a typical signification, viz. that those are most worthy of Christ, who burn with devotional desires, and have known the passage from vice to virtue, from earthly to eternal things. The wine was made to fail, to give our Lord the opportunity of making better; that so the glory of God in man might be brought out of its hiding place: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, They have no wine.
Chrysostomus: Dignum autem est quaerere, unde venit in mentem matri magnum quid imaginari de filio: neque enim ante miraculum fecerat; sequitur enim hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus. Sed revelari incipiebat et a Ioanne, et ab his quae ad discipulos dixerat; sed ante haec omnia ipsa conceptio, et ea quae post nativitatem facta sunt maximam ei de puero imposuerunt aestimationem; unde Lucas dicit: Maria conservabat omnia verba haec, conferens in corde suo. Cuius igitur gratia non ante ad miraculum eum incitavit? Nam antea ut unus multorum ita conversabatur; unde non praesumebat ei mater tale quid dicere; quia vero audivit quod Ioannes ei testificatus est, et quod discipulos iam haberet, de reliquo confidenter rogat. CHRYS. But how came it into the mother’s mind to expect so great a thing from her Son? for he had done no miracle as yet: as we read afterwards This beginning of miracles did Jesus. His real nature, however, was beginning now to be revealed by John, and His own conversations with His disciples; besides that His conception, and the circumstances of His birth, had from the first given rise to high expectations in her mind: as Luke tells us, His mother kept all these sayings in her heart. Why then did she never ask Him to work a miracle before? Because the time had now come that He should be made known. Before He had lived so much like an ordinary person, that she had not had the confidence to ask Him. But now that she heard that John had borne witness to Him, and that He had disciples, she asks Him confidently.
Alcuinus: Significat etiam in hoc loco synagogam quae Christum provocat ad faciendum miraculum: familiare enim est Iudaeis miracula inquirere. Sequitur et dicit ei Iesus: quid mihi et tibi, mulier? ALCUIN. She represents here the Synagogue, which challenges Christ to perform a miracle. It was customary with the Jews to ask for miracles. Jesus said to her, Woman, what have I to do with you?
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quidam derogantes Evangelio, et dicentes quod Iesus non fuit natus de Maria virgine, hinc argumentum sumere conantur erroris sui, ut dicant: quomodo erat mater eius cui dixit quid mihi et tibi, mulier? Sed quis hoc narravit, ut credamus quia hoc dominus dixit? Nempe Ioannes Evangelista. At ipse dixit et erat ibi mater Iesu. Quare hoc, nisi quia utrumque verum est? Sed numquid ideo venit ad nuptias, ut doceret matres contemni? AUG. Some who derogate from the Gospel, and say that Jesus was not born of the Virgin Mary, try to draw an argument for their error from this place; for, how, say they, could she be His mother to whom He said, What have I to do with you? Now who is it who gives this account, and on whose authority do we believe it? The Evangelist John. But he himself says, The mother of Jesus was there. Why should He say it, unless both were true. But did He therefore come to the marriage to teach men to despise their mother?
Chrysostomus: Sed quod valde venerabatur matrem, audi Lucam enarrantem, qualiter subditus parentibus erat. Nam ubi quidem parentes nihil impediunt eorum quae sunt secundum Deum, debitum est subici eis; quando autem non tempore debito aliquid quaerunt, et abscindunt nos a spiritualibus, non ex hoc fallaris. CHRYS. That He greatly venerated His mother, we know from St. Luke, who tells us that He was subject unto His parents. For where parents throw no obstacle in the way of God’s commands, it is our duty to be subject to them; but when they demand any thing at an unseasonable time, or cut us off from spiritual things, we should not be deceived into compliance.
Augustinus de symbolo: Ut ergo distingueret inter Deum et hominem, quia secundum hominem minor et subditus erat, secundum autem Deum supra omnes erat, dixit quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? AUG. To mark a distinction between His Godhead and manhood, that according to His manhood He was inferior and subject, but according to His Godhead supreme, He said, Woman, what have I to do with you?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed et propter aliam causam, ut non suspecta essent miracula quae fiebant (ab his enim qui indigebant, rogari oportuerat, non a matre), voluit ostendere quoniam omnia decenti tempore operatur, non simul omnia faciens: quia confusio quaedam esset; et ideo sequitur nondum venit hora mea; idest, nondum cognitus sum his qui adsunt. Sed neque sciunt quoniam defecit vinum: sine eos primum hoc sentire: qui enim necessitatem non praesentit, neque beneficii grandem suscipiet sensum. CHRYS. And for another reason, viz. to prevent any suspicion attaching to His miracles: for these it was proper should be asked for by those who wanted them, not by His mother. He wished to show them that He would perform all in their proper time, not all at once, to prevent confusion; for He said, Mine hour is not yet come; i.e. I am not yet known to the persons present; nay, they know not that the wine has failed; let them find out that first; he who perceives not his want beforehand, will not perceive when his want is supplied.
Augustinus: Vel ideo quia dominus noster, secundum quod Deus erat, matrem non habebat; secundum quod homo erat, habebat matrem. Miraculum autem quod facturus erat, secundum divinitatem facturus erat, non secundum infirmitatem humanam. Miraculum tamen exigebat mater; at ille tamquam non agnoscens viscera humana, operaturus facta divina, dixit quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Tamquam dicat: quod in me facit miraculum, non tu genuisti, deitatem meam. Dicitur autem mulier secundum femineum sexum, non secundum corruptionem integritatis. Sed quia genuisti infirmitatem meam, tunc te cognoscam cum ipsa infirmitas pendebit in cruce; unde subdit nondum venit hora mea; quasi dicat: ibi te agnoscam cum pendere in cruce infirmitas coeperit, cuius et mater es. Commendavit enim matrem discipulo, prius matre moriturus, et ante mortem matris resurrecturus. Videte autem ne forte quomodo invenerunt Manichaei occasionem perfidiae suae, quia dixit dominus quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Sic inveniant mathematici occasionem fallaciae, quia dixit nondum venit hora mea. Dicunt enim: vides quia sub fato erat Christus, quia dixit nondum venit hora mea. Credant autem Deo dicenti: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et iterum sumendi eam; et quaerant quare sit dictum nondum venit hora mea: nec ideo iam sub fato ponant conditorem caeli: quia si esset fatum de sideribus, non poterat esse sub necessitate siderum conditor siderum. Adde quod non solum Christus non habuit quod appellas fatum; sed nec tu, aut ille, aut quisquam hominum. Quare ergo dixit nondum venit hora mea? Quia in potestate habebat quando moreretur; sed nondum videbat esse opportunum ut illa potestate uteretur. Vocandi erant discipuli, annuntiandum erat regnum caelorum, faciendae erant virtutes, commendanda erat divinitas domini in miraculis, commendanda erat humanitas domini in ipsa compassione mortalitatis. At ubi tantum fecit quantum sufficere iudicavit, venit hora, non necessitatis, sed voluntatis; non conditionis, sed potestatis. AUG. Or it was because our Lord as God had not a mother, though as man He had, and the miracle He was about to work was the act of His Divinity, not of human infirmity. When therefore His mother demanded a miracle, He, as though not acknowledging a human birth, when about to perform a divine work, said, Woman, what have I to do with you? As if He said, You did not beget that in Me, which works the miracle, My Divinity. (She is called woman, with reference to the female sex, not to any injury of her virginity.) But because you brought forth My infirmity, I will acknowledge you then, when that very infirmity shall hang on the cross. And therefore He adds, Mine hour is not yet come: as if to say, I will acknowledge you when the infirmity, of which you are the mother, shall hang from the cross. He commended His mother to the disciple, when about to die, and to rise again, before her death. But note; just as the Manicheans have found an occasion of error and pretext for their faithlessness in our Lord’s word, What have I to do with you? in the same way the astrologers support theirs from the words, Mine hour is not yet come. For, say they, if Christ had not been under the power of fate, He would never have said this. But let them believe what hat God says below, I have power to lay it (my life) down, and I have power to take it again: and then let them ask, why He says, Mine hour is not yet come: nor let them on such a ground subject the Creator of heaven to fate; seeing that, even were there a fatality in the stars, the Maker of the stars could not be under the dominion of the stars. And not only had Christ nothing to do with fate, as you call it; but neither have you, or any other man. Wherefore said He then, Mine hour is not yet come? Because He had the power to die when He pleased, but did not think it expedient yet to exert the power He was to call the disciples; to proclaim the Kingdom of heaven, to do marvelous works, to approve His divinity by miracles, His humility by partaking of the sufferings of our mortal state. And when He had done all, then the hour was come, not of destiny, but of will, not of obligation, but of power.


Lectio 2
5 λέγει ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις, ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν ποιήσατε. 6 ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς. 7 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγέμισαν αὐτὰς ἕως ἄνω. 8 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, ἀντλήσατε νῦν καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ: οἱ δὲ ἤνεγκαν. 9 ὡς δὲ ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν, οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ, φωνεῖ τὸν νυμφίον ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος 10 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω: σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι. 11 ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
5. His mother said to the servants, Whatsoever he says to you, do it. 6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7. Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8. And he said to them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bore it. 9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10. And said to him, Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but you have kept the good wine until now. 11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quamvis dixerit nondum venit hora mea, postmodum fecit quod mater dixerat; ut etiam ex hoc sufficiens esset demonstratio quod non subiectus est horae. Si enim horae subiciebatur, qualiter debita hora nondum facta hoc fecit? Deinde et propter honorem matris, ut non finaliter ei contradicere videretur: neque eam tot praesentibus erubescere faceret: adduxerat enim ad eum ministros, ut a pluribus fieret petitio; unde sequitur dicit mater eius ministris: quodcumque dixerit vobis, facite. CHRYS. Although He had said, Mine hour is not yet come, He afterwards did what His mother told Him, in order to show plainly, that He was not under subjection to the hour. For if He was, how could He have done this miracle before the hour appointed for it? In the next place, He wished to show honor to His mother, and make it appear that He did not go counter to her eventually. He would not put her to shame in the presence of so many; especially as she had sent the servants to Him, that the petition might come from a number, and not from herself only; His mother said to the servants, Whatsoever He says to you, do it.
Beda: Quasi dicat: licet abnegare videatur, tamen faciet: noverat enim eum mater pium et misericordem. Sequitur erant autem ibi lapideae hydriae sex positae secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, capientes singulae metretas binas vel ternas. Hydriae vocantur vasa aquarum receptui parata; Graece enim aqua hydor dicitur. BEDE; As if she said, Though He appear to refuse, He will do it nevertheless. She knew His pity and mercifulness. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Hydriae are vessels to hold water: hydor being the Greek for water.
Alcuinus: Vasa autem aquarum receptui parata erant secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, quia inter alias Pharisaeorum traditiones etiam hoc observabant ut crebro se lavarent. ALCUIN. Vessels to hold water were there, after the manner of the purifying of Jews. Among other traditions of the Pharisees, they observed frequent washings
Chrysostomus: Quia vero inaquosa est Palaestina, et non erat multis in locis fontes et puteos invenire, replebant hydrias aqua, ut non currerent ad flumina, si quando immundi fierent; sed de prope haberent purgationis modum. Ne autem quidam infidelium suspicarentur quoniam, faece intus remanente, deinde aqua immissa, vinum subtilissimum factum esset, propterea ait secundum purificationem Iudaeorum, ostendens quod illa vasa numquam vini receptacula facta erant. CHRYS Palestine being a dry country, with few fountains or wells, they used to fill waterpots with water, to prevent the necessity of going to the river, if they were unclean, and to have materials for washing at hand. To prevent any unbeliever from suspecting that a very thin wine was made by the dregs having been left in the vessels, and water poured in upon them, He says expressly, According to the manner of the purifying of the Jews: which shows that those vessels were never used to hold wine.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Metretas enim dicit mensuras quasdam, tamquam si diceret urnas, amphoras, vel aliud huiusmodi. Metron enim mensuram dicunt Graeci: inde appellatae metretae. Quod autem ait binas vel ternas, non ita accipiendum est quod aliae binas, aliae ternas; sed eaedem ipsae caperent binas quae etiam ternas. Sequitur dixit eis Iesus: implete hydrias aqua. Et impleverunt eas usque ad summum. AUG. A firkin is a certain measure; as urn, amphora, and the like. Metron is the Greek for measure: whence metreta. Two or three, is not to be taken to mean some holding two, others three, but the same vessels holding two or three. Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Chrysostomus: Sed quare antequam implevissent hydrias aqua, non fecit signum? Quod multo mirabilius esset: quia scilicet aliud est substantiam in aliam qualitatem transmutare, et ipsam substantiam ex nihilo facere. Hoc quidem mirabilius est, sed non ita videtur credibile multis. Propterea enim multoties a miraculorum magnitudine abstinet, volens magis credibile esse quod fiebat. Cum hoc et perversa dogmata evertit. Quia enim sunt quidam qui mundi conditorem alium esse dicunt, plura miraculorum ex subiectis substantiis facit; si enim contrarius ei esset qui conditor est mundi, non utique alienis uteretur ad propriae virtutis demonstrationem. Non autem ipse aquam hausit, et tunc vinum ostendit, sed hoc iubet ministris, ut eos testes haberet eius quod fiebat; unde sequitur et dicit eis Iesus: haurite nunc, et ferte architriclino. CHRYS. But why did He not world the miracle before they had filled the waterpots, which would have been much more wonderful; inasmuch as it is one thing to change the quality of some existing substance, another to make it that substance out of nothing? The latter miracle would be the more wonderful, but the former would be the more easy of belief. And this principle often acts as a check, to moderate the greatness of our Lord’s miracles: He wishes to make them more credible, therefore He makes them less marvelous; a refutation this of the perverse doctrine of some, that He was a different Being from the Maker of the world. For we see He performs most of His miracles upon subject-matter already existing, whereas were He contrary to the Creator of the world, He would not use a material thus alien, to demonstrate His own power. He did not draw out the water Himself which He made wine, but ordered the servants to do so. This was for the sake of having witnesses of the miracle; And He said to them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
Alcuinus: Triclinium ordo trium lectorum; clini enim lectum significat. Architriclinus princeps triclinii, idest primus inter convivas, qui more antiquo in lectis discumbebant; unde quidam architriclinum intelligunt aliquem ex sacerdotibus Iudaeorum, qui nuptiis interesse poterant, ut illos instruerent qualiter nuptiis uti deberent. ALCUIN. The Triclinium is a circle of three couches, cline signifying couch: the ancients used to recline upon couches. And the Architriclinus is the one at the head of the Triclinium, i.e. the chief of the guests. Some say that among the Jews, He was a priest, and attended the marriage in order to instruct in the duties of the married state.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Quia aliqui possent dicere quod convivae ebrii erant, et sensus iudicantium corruptus, ut nescirent utrum aqua vel vinum esset; hi autem quibus ministratio conviviorum credita est, maxime vigiles sunt, unum opus habentes ut ornate et ordinate omnia disponantur; ideo in testimonium eorum quae fiebant dixit dominus ferte architriclino, propter evigilantem eius sensum: et non dixit: propinate discumbentibus. CHRYS Or thus; It might be said that the guests were drunken, and could not, in the confusion of their senses, tell whether it were water or wine. But this objection could not be brought against the attendants, who must have been sober, being occupied wholly in performing the duties of their service gracefully and in order. Our Lord therefore bid the attendants bear to the governor of the feast; who again would of course be perfectly sober. He did not say, Give to the guests to drink.
Hilarius de Trin: Aqua igitur hydriis infunditur, vinum calicibus hauritur: infundentis scientiae sensus non convenit haurientis. Qui infuderunt, hauriri aquam existimant: qui hauriunt vinum, infusum arbitrantur; unde sequitur ut autem gustavit architriclinus aquam vinum factam, et non sciebat unde esset (ministri autem sciebant, qui hauserant aquam), vocat sponsum architriclinus. Non autem aquae simplicitas defecit, et vini sapor natus est; non per transfusionem potioris obtinetur quod infirmius est; sed aboletur quod erat, et quod non erat coepit. HILARY; Water is poured into the waterpots; wine is drawn out into the chalices; the senses of the drawer out agree not with the knowledge of the pourer in. The pourer in thinks that water is drawn out; the drawer out thinks that wine was poured in. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants who drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. It was not a mixture, but a creation: the simple nature of water vanished, and the flavor of wine was produced; not that a weak dilution was obtained, by means of some strong infusion, but that which was, was annihilated; and that which was not, came to be.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Paulatim autem dominus volebat cognosci suorum signorum virtutem; et ideo neque ipse revelabat quod factum est, neque ministros architriclinus vocavit; non enim esset eis creditum de puro homine existimato tale testimonium reddentibus: sed vocat sponsum, qui maxime poterat conspicere quod fiebat. Non simpliciter autem Christus vinum, sed vinum optimum fecit; unde sequitur et dicit ei: omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, et cum inebriati fuerint, tunc id quod deterius est. Talia enim sunt Christi miracula, ut multo his quae per naturam fiunt, speciosiora et utiliora fiant. Igitur aqua vinum facta ministros testes habuit; boni vero vini factio architriclinum et sponsum. Probabile autem est et sponsum aliquid respondisse; sed Evangelista hoc praetermittit, tangens solum id quod necessarium est scire, scilicet quoniam vinum aquam fecit; unde statim subdit hoc fecit initium signorum Iesus in Cana Galilaeae. Tunc enim signa maxime necessarium erat facere, quando discipuli iam congregati erant devoti et attendentes his quae fiebant, manifeste aderant. Si vero dixerit quis non esse argumentum sufficiens ut hoc sit principium signorum, quia additur in Cana Galilaeae, quasi contingat alibi prius esse facta, dicemus, quod et antea diximus, quia Ioannes dicit: ut manifestetur Israeli, propterea veni baptizans. Si vero secundum primam aetatem miracula fecit, nequaquam indigebant Israelitae alio manifestante eum. Qui enim in brevi tempore ita per miraculorum multitudinem claruit, ut eius nomen manifestum fieret omnibus; multo magis si puer existens a prima aetate miracula fecisset: nam et ea quae fierent, inopinabiliora existimarentur ab infante facta, et tempus amplius esset. Decenter autem non incepit signa facere ex prima aetate: existimassent enim phantasiam esse incarnationem, et ante opportunum tempus cruci eum tradidissent livore liquefacti. CHRYS. Our Lord wished the power of His miracles to be seen gradually; and therefore He did not reveal what He had done Himself, nor did the ruler of the feast call upon the servants to do so; (for no credit would have been given to such testimony concerning a mere man, as our Lord was supposed to be,) but He called the bridegroom, who was best able to see what was done. Christ moreover did not only make wine, but the best wine. And (the ruler of the feast) said to him, Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but you have kept the good wine until now. The effects of the miracles of Christ are more beautiful and better than the productions of nature. So then that the water was made wine, the servants could testify; that it was made good wine, the ruler of the feast and the bridegroom. It is probable that the bridegroom made some answer; but the Evangelist omits it, only mentioning what it was necessary for us to know, viz. the water being made wine. He adds, This beginning of of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee. It was very necessary to work miracles just then, when His devoted disciples were all collected, and present at the place, attending to what was going on. ID. Should any say that there is not sufficient proof of this being the beginning of miracles, because it is added, in Cana of Galilee, as if some had been preferred elsewhere: we answer, as we did before, that John says below, That He might be made manifest to Israel, therefore have I come baptizing. Now if He had performed miracles in the earlier part of His life, the Jews would not have wanted another person to point Him out. If our Lord in a short time became so distinguished for the number of His miracles, that His Name was known to every one, would He not have been much more so, had He worked miracles from His earliest years? for the things themselves would have been the more extraordinary, being performed by a Child, and in so long a time must have become notorious. It was fit and proper however that He should not begin to work miracles at so early an age: for men would have thought the Incarnation a fantasy, and in the extremity of envy would have delivered Him to be crucified before the appointed time.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Hoc autem miraculum domini quo de aqua vinum fecit, non est mirum eis qui noverunt quia Deus fecit. Ipse enim fecit vinum illo die in hydriis qui omni anno hoc facit in vitibus; sed hoc assiduitate amisit admirationem: itaque servavit sibi Deus inusitata quaedam quae faceret, ut tamquam dormientes homines ad se colendum mirabiliter excitaret; propter quod sequitur et manifestavit gloriam suam. AUG. This miracle of our Lord’s, turning the water into wine, is no miracle to those who know that God worked it. For the Same that day made wine in the waterpots, Who every year makes wine in the vine: only the latter is no longer wonderful, because it happens uniformly. And therefore it is that God keeps some extraordinary acts in store for certain occasions, to rouse men out of their lethargy, and make them worship Him. Thus it follows, He manifested forth His glory.
Alcuinus: Quia ipse est rex gloriae, qui sicut dominus elementa mutabat. ALCUIN. He was the King of glory, and changed the elements because He was their Lord.
Chrysostomus: Et hoc quantum ex parte sua: etsi vero tunc multi non cognoverunt, sed tamen omnes postea erant miraculum audituri. Sequitur et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius: hi enim debebant credere et facilius, et cum diligentia attendere his quae fiebant. CHRYS. He manifests His glory, as far as related to His own act; and if at the time many knew it not, yet was it afterwards to be heard and known of all. And His disciples believed in Him. It was probable that these would believe more readily, and give more attention to what went on.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Sed si tunc in eum crediderunt, nondum erat discipuli cum ad nuptias vocati sunt; sed illo more locutionis hoc dictum est quo loquimur cum dicimus apostolum Paulum in Tharso Ciliciae natum: neque enim tunc iam erat apostolus. Ita discipulos Christi invitatos ad nuptias cum audimus, non iam discipulos, sed qui futuri erant discipuli intelligere debemus. AUG. If now for the first time they believed on Him, they were not His disciples when they came to the marriage. This however is a form of speech, such as saying that the Apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; not meaning by this that he was an Apostle then. In the same way when we hear of Christ’s disciples being invited to the marriage, we should understand not disciples already, but who were to be disciples.
Augustinus: Illa autem mysteria quae in isto miraculo domini latent, videte. Oportebat impleri in Christo quae de illo scripta erant. Illa erat aqua; fecit autem de aqua vinum, cum aperuit eis sensum, et exposuit Scripturas: sic enim sapit quod non sapiebat, et inebriat quod non inebriabat. AUG. But see the mysteries which lie hid in that miracle of our Lord. It was necessary that all things should be fulfilled in Christ which were written of Him: those Scriptures were the water. He made the water wine when He opened to them the meaning of these things, and expounded the Scriptures; for thus that came to have a taste which before had none, and that inebriated, which did not inebriate before.
Beda: Apparente enim domino in carne, vinosa legalis sensus suavitas paulatim coeperat ob carnalem Pharisaeorum interpretationem a prisca sua virtute deficere. BEDE; At the time of our Lord’s appearing in the flesh, the sweet vinous taste of the law had been weakened by the carnal interpretations of the Pharisees.
Augustinus: Si autem iussisset aquam effundi, et ipse mitteret vinum ex occultis creaturae finibus, videretur Scripturas veteres improbasse. Cum autem ipsam aquam convertit in vinum, ostendit nobis quod et Scriptura vetus ab ipso est: nam iussu ipsius impletae sunt hydriae. Sed nihil sapit illa Scriptura, si non ibi Christus intelligatur. Novimus autem legem ex quibus temporibus narret, idest ab exordio mundi; inde usque ad hoc tempus quod nunc agimus, sexta aetas est: nam prima aetas computatur ab Adam usque ad Noe, secunda a Noe usque ad Abraham, tertia ab Abraham usque ad David, quarta a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis, quinta usque ad Ioannem Baptistam, sexta inde usque ad finem saeculi. Sex ergo illae hydriae sex aetates significant, quibus non defuit prophetia. Impletae sunt prophetiae, plenae sunt hydriae. Quid est autem quod capiebant metretas binas vel trinas? Si trinas tantum diceret, non curreret animus noster nisi ad mysterium Trinitatis. Sed forte nec sic debemus inde sensum avertere, quia dixit binas vel trinas: quia nominato patre et filio, consequenter et spiritus sanctus intelligendus est. Oportet enim intelligi caritatem invicem patris et filii, quod est spiritus sanctus. Sed est et alius intellectus non praetermittendus: binae enim metretae intelliguntur in duobus generibus hominum, idest Iudaeis et Graecis; tres autem propter Noe tres filios significandos. AUG. Now if He ordered the water to be poured out, and then introduced the wine from the hidden recesses of creation, He would seem to have rejected the Old Testament. But converting, as He did, the water into wine, He showed us that the Old Testament was from Himself; for it was as by His order that the waterpots were filled. But those Scriptures have no meaning, if Christ be not understood there. Now we know from what time the law dates, viz. from the foundation of the world. From that time to this are six ages; the first reckoning from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from that time to John the Baptist; the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. The six waterpots then denote these six ages of prophecy. The prophecies are fulfilled; the waterpots are full. But what is the meaning of their holding two or three firkins apiece? Had He said three only, our minds would have run immediately to the mystery of the Trinity. Nor perhaps can we reject it, even though it is said, two or three: for the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Ghost may be understood by consequence; inasmuch as it is the love between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Ghost. Nor should we pass over another interpretation, which makes the two firkins alluded to the two races of men, the Jews and the Greeks; and the three to the three sons of Noah.
Alcuinus: Ministri autem sunt doctores novi testamenti, qui Scripturas aliis sacras spiritualiter interpretantur; architriclinus autem est aliquis legisperitus, ut Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Saulus. Dum ergo talibus Evangelii verbum committitur, quod in littera legis occultabatur, quasi vinum de aqua factum architriclino propinatur. Et bene in domo nuptiarum tres ordines discumbentium describuntur: quia Ecclesia tribus ordinibus fidelium constat: coniugatorum, continentium et doctorum. Optimum autem vinum Christus usque adhuc servavit, idest Evangelium usque ad sextam aetatem distulit. ALCUIN. The servants are the doctors of the New Testament, who interpret the holy Scripture to others spiritually; the ruler of the feast is some lawyer, as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, or Saul. When to the former then is committed the word of the Gospel, hid under the letter of the law, it is the water made wine, being set before the ruler of the feast. And the three rows of guests at table in the house of the marriage are properly mentioned; the Church consisting of three orders of believers, the married, the continent, and the doctors. Christ has kept the good wine until now, i.e. He has deferred the Gospel till this, the sixth age.

Lectio 3
12 μετὰ τοῦτο κατέβη εἰς καφαρναοὺμ αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [αὐτοῦ] καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας. 13 καὶ ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
12. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. 13. And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quoniam autem paulo post dominus Hierosolymam ascensurus erat, Capharnaum adiit, ut non ubique fratres et matrem secum trahat; unde dicitur post haec descendit Capharnaum ipse et mater eius et fratres eius et discipuli eius; et ibi manserunt non multis diebus. CHRYS. Our Lord being about shortly to go up to Jerusalem, proceeded to Capernaum, that He might not take His mother and brethren every where about with Him: After this he went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples, and they continued there not many days.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Hic est autem dominus Deus noster excelsus, ut nos faceret; humilis, ut nos reficeret; ambulans inter homines, patiens humana, abscondens divina. Ecce habet matrem, habet fratres, habet et discipulos. Inde fratres unde matrem. Fratres enim Scriptura nostra appellare consuevit non eos solos qui nascuntur ex eodem utero aut ex eodem patre; sed ex eodem gradu, velut compatrueles aut consobrinos. Unde ergo fratres domino? Num enim Maria iterum peperit? Absit: inde coepit dignitas virginum. Abraham patruus erat Lot, et Iacob Laban Syrum habebat avunculum; et utrique dicti sunt fratres. AUG. The Lord our God is He, high, that He might create us; low, that He might create us anew; walking among men, suffering what was human, hiding what was divine. So He has a mother, has brethren, has disciple: whence He has a mother, thence has He brethren. Scripture frequently gives the name of brethren, not to those only who are born of the same womb, or the same father, but to those of the same generation, cousins by the father’s or mother’s side. Those who are unacquainted with this were of speaking, ask, Whence has our Lord brothers? Did Mary bring forth again? That could not be: with her commenced the dignity of the virgin state. Abraham was uncle of Lot, and Jacob was nephew to Laban the Syrian. Yet Abraham and Lot are called brethren; and likewise Jacob and Laban.
Alcuinus: Fratres ergo domini dicuntur cognati Mariae vel Ioseph, non filii Mariae vel Ioseph: quia non solum beata virgo, sed etiam Ioseph testis castitatis eius ab omni actione coniugali immunis permansit. ALCUIN. Our Lord’s brethren are the relations of Mary and Joseph, not the sons of Mary and Joseph. For not only the blessed Virgin, but Joseph also, the witness of her chastity, abstained from all conjugal intercourse.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Quod vero dicit et discipuli eius, incertum est utrum iam illi adhaeserant etiam Petrus, et Andreas, et filii Zebedaei. Matthaeus enim primo narrat quod venerit et habitaverit in Capharnaum, et postea quod eos de navibus piscantes vocaverit. An forte Matthaeus quod praetermiserat recapitulavit? Quia sine ulla consequentis temporis differentia dixit: ambulans iuxta mare Galilaeae, vidit duos fratres, an potius alii discipuli fuerunt? Scriptura enim evangelica et apostolica non solum illos duodenos appellat discipulos eius, sed omnes qui in Deum credentes ad regnum caelorum magisterio eius erudiebantur. Illud etiam requirendum est, quomodo hic dicit, antequam Ioannes Baptista missus esset in carcerem, Iesum venisse in Galilaeam: cum Matthaeus dicat: cum autem audisset quod Ioannes traditus esset, secessit in Galilaeam: similiter etiam et Marcus. Lucas etiam nihil quidem dicit de tradito Ioanne: sed post Baptismum et tentationem Christi dicit eum iisse in Galilaeam, sicut illi duo. Unde intelligitur tres Evangelistas non Ioanni Evangelistae contraria narrasse, sed praetermisisse primum domini adventum in Galilaeam posteaquam baptizatus est, quando illic aquam convertit in vinum. AUG. And His disciples; it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, were of their number or not at this time. For Matthew first relates that out Lord came and dwelt at Capernaum, and afterwards that He called those disciples from their boats, as they were fishing. Is Matthew perhaps supplying what he had omitted? For without any mention that it was at a subsequent time, he says, Jesus walking by sea of Galilee saw two brethren. Or is it better to suppose that these were other disciples? For the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, call not the twelve only, but all who believing in God were prepared for the kingdom of heaven by our Lord’s teaching, disciples. How is it too that our Lord’s journey to Galilee is placed here before John the Baptist’s imprisonment, when Matthew says, Now when Jesus had heard that John was as cast into prison, he departed into Galilee: and Mark the same? Luke too, though he says nothing of John’s imprisonment, yet places Christ’s visit to Galilee after His temptation and baptism, as the two former do. We should understand then that the three Evangelists are not opposed to John, but pass over our Lord’s first coming into Galilee after his baptism; at which time it was that He converted the water into wine.
Eusebius Eccles. Hist: Cum enim trium Evangeliorum ad Ioannem Evangelistam notitia pervenisset, probasse quidem dicitur fidem et veritatem dictorum; deesse tamen vidit aliqua, et ea maxime quae primo praedicationis suae tempore dominus gesserat: certum est enim quod in superioribus tribus Evangeliis haec videntur sola contineri quae in eo gesta sunt anno quo Ioannes Baptista vel inclusus est in carcere, vel punitus. Et ideo rogatus dicitur Ioannes apostolus ut ea quae praeterierant priores ante traditionem Ioannis, salvatoris gesta conscriberet. Unde si quis diligenter consideret, inveniet Evangelia non dissonare; sed alterius temporis gesta esse quae scribit Ioannes, alterius vero quae ceteri. EUSEBIUS. When copies of the three Gospels had come to the Evangelist John, he is reported, while he confirmed their fidelity and correctness, to have at the same time noticed some omissions, especially at the opening of our Lord’s ministry. Certain it is that the first three Gospels seem only to contain the events of the year in which John the Baptist was imprisoned, and put to death. And therefore John, it is said, was asked to write down those acts of our Savior’s before the apprehension of the Baptist, which the former Evangelists had passed over. Any one then, by attending, will find that the Gospels do not disagree, but that John is relating the events of a different date, from that which the others refer to.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Neque enim in Capharnaum miraculum ullum tunc operatus est: qui enim civitatem habitabant illam, non sane se habebant ad Christum, sed erant valde corrupti: ideo tamen accedit et parum ibi trahit tempus propter eum qui ad matrem erat honorem. CHRYS. He did not perform any miracle at Capernaum, the inhabitants of which city were in a very corrupt state, and not well disposed to Him; He went there however, and stayed some time out of respect to His mother.
Beda: Ideo etiam non multis diebus ibi manserunt, propter festum Paschae, quod iam appropinquabat; unde sequitur et prope erat Pascha Iudaeorum. BEDE; He did not stay many days there, on account of the Passover, which was approaching: And the Jews’ passover was at hand.
Origenes in Ioannem: Sed quid intendit ibi appositio Iudaeorum? Non enim nationis alterius Paschae solemnitas fuerat. Forsan vero quia quoddam est Pascha humanum eorum qui procul a proposito Scripturae celebrant illud, quoddam vero divinum et verum, quod in spiritu et veritate perficitur. Ad distinctionem ergo divini dicitur Iudaeorum. Sequitur et ascendit Hierosolymam. ORIGEN; But what need of saying, of the Jews, when no other nation had the rite of the Passover? Perhaps’ because there are two sorts of Passover, one human, which is celebrated in a way very different from the design of Scripture; another the true and Divine, which is kept in spirit and in truth. To distinguish it then from the Divine, it is said, of the Jews.
Alcuinus: Bis in Evangeliis legitur Iesum ascendisse Hierosolymam: semel in primo anno praedicationis, dum adhuc Ioannes non erat missus in carcerem; de hoc ascensu nunc agitur; et iterum illo anno quo erat passurus. Dedit autem nobis exemplum dominus quanta cura divinis subdi debeamus imperiis. Si enim ipsa Dei filius decreta legis a se data implebat, celebrans solemnitates cum ceteris hominibus, quanto studio bonorum operum servi debent solemnitates et praevenire et celebrare? ALCUIN. And He went up to Jerusalem. The Gospels mention two journeys of our Lord to Jerusalem, one in the first year of His preaching, before John was sent to prison, which is the journey now spoken of; the other in the year of His Passion. Our Lord has set us here an example of careful obedience to the Divine commands. For if the Son of God fulfilled the injunctions of His own law, by keeping the festivals, like the rest, with what holy zeal should we servants prepare for and celebrate them?
Origenes: Mystice autem, cum facta est nuptiarum praeparatio in Cana Galilaeae, descendit una cum matre, fratribus et discipulis in Capharnaum, quae interpretatur ager consolationis. Oportebat enim post vini alacritatem, ad agrum consolationis, una cum matre et discipulis ascendere salvatorem, consolaturum in futuris fructibus et in agrorum multitudine suscipientes disciplinam eius, et animam quae illum spiritu sancto concepit, et iuvandos ibi. Sunt enim quidam fructificantes, ad quos dominus ipse descendit una cum verbi ministris atque discipulis, adiuvans huiusmodi praesente matre sua. Videntur autem qui Capharnaum ducti sunt, non capere diuturnam apud se Iesu praesentiam: quoniam illuminationem quae de pluribus dogmatibus est, inferioris consolationis agellus non capit, cum paucorum capax existat. ORIGEN; In a mystical sense, it was meet that after the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the banquet and wine, our Lord should take His mother, brethren, and disciples to the land of consolation (as Capernaum signifies ) to console, by the fruits that were to spring up and by abundance of fields, those who received His discipline, and the mind which had conceived Him by the Holy Ghost; and who were there to be holpen. For some there are bearing fruit, to whom our Lord Himself comes down with the ministers of His word and disciples, helping such, His mother being present. Those however who are called to Capernaum, do not seem capable of His presence long: that is, a land which admits lower consolation, is not able to take in the enlightenment from many doctrines; being capable to receive few only.
Alcuinus: Vel Capharnaum villa pulcherrima est, et significat mundum, in quem verbum patris descendit. ALCUIN. Or Capernaum, we may interpret “a most beautiful village,” and so it signifies the world, to which the Word of the Father came down.
Beda: Non multis autem diebus ibi mansit, quia parvo in hoc mundo tempore cum hominibus conversatus est. BEDE; But He continued there only a few days, because he lived with men in this world only a short time.
Origenes: Est autem Hierosolyma civitas regis magni, velut ipse salvator ait, ad quam nullus eorum qui manent in terris conscendit nec ingreditur: sed quaelibet anima quae naturalem obtinet celsitudinem et acumen intelligibilium perspicuum, eius civitatis est incola, ad quam solus Iesus ascendisse dicitur. Videntur tamen post discipuli fore praesentes dum recolunt zelus domus tuae comedit me; sed quasi in quolibet discipulorum Iesus ascendit. ORIGEN; Jerusalem, as our Savior Himself said, is the city of the great King, into which none of those who remain on earth ascend, or enter. Only the soul which has a certain natural loftiness, and clear insight into things invisible, is the inhabitant of that city. Jesus alone goes up thither. But His disciples seem to have been present afterwards. The zeal of Your house has eaten me up. But it is as though in every one of the disciples who went up, it was Jesus who went up.

Lectio 4
14 καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, 16 καὶ τοῖς τὰς περιστερὰς πωλοῦσιν εἶπεν, ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου. 17 ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστίν, ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με.
14. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; 16. And said to them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise. 17. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of your house has eaten me up.

Beda super Matth: Dominus Ierusalem adveniens, continuo templum oraturus addit, nobis dans exemplum ut quocumque properamus, domum Dei primo ingrediamur, dominum deprecaturi; unde dicitur et invenit in templo vendentes boves et oves et columbas. BEDE; Our Lord on coming to Jerusalem, immediately entered the temple to pray; giving us an example that, wheresoever we go, our first visit should be to the house of God to pray. And He found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sacrificia enim illi populo pro eius carnalitate talia data sunt, quibus teneretur ne ad idola deflueret; et immolabant boves et oves et columbas. AUG. Such sacrifices were prescribed to the people, in condescension to their carnal minds; to prevent them from turning aside to idols. They sacrificed sheep, and oxen, and doves.
Beda: Sed quia de longinquo properantes quae iussa sunt immolari domino, secum ferre non poterant, eorum pretia deferebant: unde nacta occasione, haec animalia in templo Scribae et Pharisaei vendi instituerunt, ut venientes emerent et offerrent, eademque oblata ipsi aliis venderent; et sic sua lucra accumularent. Unde et nummularii ad hoc sedebant ad mensam, ut inter emptores venditoresque hostiarum prompta esset pecunia: unde subditur et nummularios sedentes. Dominus autem nolens aliquid in domo sua terrenae esse negotiationis, neque eius quae honesta putaretur, negotiatores omnes expulit foras. BEDE; Those however, who came from a distance, being unable to bring with them the animals required for sacrifice, brought the money instead. For their convenience the Scribes and Pharisees ordered animals to be sold in the temple, in order that, when the people had bought and offered them afterwards, they might sell them again, and thus make great profits. And changers of money sitting; changers of money sat at the table to supply change to buyers and sellers. But our Lord disapproving of any worldly business in His house, especially one of so questionable a kind, drove out all engaged in it.
Augustinus: Et qui flagellandus erat ab eis, prior illos flagellavit; unde sequitur et cum fecisset quasi flagellum de funiculis, omnes eiecit de templo. AUG. He who was to be scourged by them, was first of all the scourger; and when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple.
Theophylactus: Neque solum eos eiecit qui vendebant et emebant, sed etiam res eorum; unde subditur oves quoque et boves et nummulariorum effudit aes, et mensas evertit, scilicet nummularias, quae erant quasi vasa denariorum. THEOPHYL. Nor did He cast out only those who bought and sold, but their goods also: The sheep, and the oxen and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables, i.e. of the money changers, which were coffers of pence.
Origenes: Consideremus autem, ne forte enorme videatur quod Dei filius captis funiculis parat sibi flagellum ad eiciendum de templo. Unum tamen refugium ad horum responsionem relinquitur divina potestas Iesu, ut cum volebat posset iracundiam hostium suffocare, quamvis essent innumeri, et sedare mentium turbines: dominus enim dissipat cogitationes gentium. Praesens autem historia in nullo minorem potestatem praetendit his quae ab eo miraculosius edita sunt: quinimmo constat hanc maiorem demonstrare potentiam miraculo quo aqua conversa est in vinum: eo quod illic inanimata subsistit materia, hic vero tot millium hominum domantur ingenia. ORIGEN; Should it appear something out of the order of things, that the Son of God should make a scourge of small cords, to drive them out of the temple? We have one answer in which some take refuge, viz. the divine power of Jesus, Who, when He pleased, could extinguish the wrath of His enemies however innumerable, and quiet the tumult of their minds: The Lord brings the counsel of the heathen to nought. This act indeed exhibits no less power, than His more positive miracles; nay rather, more than the miracle by which water was converted into wine: in that there the subject-matter was inanimate, here, the minds of so many thousands of men are overcome.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Manifestum est autem non semel, sed iterato hoc factum esse a domino. Sed illud primum commemoratur hic a Ioanne, istud ultimum a ceteris tribus. AUG. It is evident that this was done on two several occasions; the first mentioned by John, the last by the other three.
Origenes: Et Ioannes quidem hic dicit quod expulit vendentes de templo; Matthaeus autem ait quoniam expulit vendentes et ementes. Multo autem maior numerus erat ementium quam vendentium; quorum expulsio transcendebat dignitatem eius qui reputabatur filius carpentarii; nisi quod divina potestate sibi omnes subiecit, ut dictum est. ORIGEN; John says here that He drove out the sellers from the temple; Matthew, the sellers and buyers. The number of buyers was much greater than of the sellers: and therefore to drive them out was beyond the power of the carpenter’s Son, as He was supposed to be, had He not by His divine power put all things under Him, as it is said.
Beda: Commendatur autem in hac lectione utraque Christi natura: humana quidem, in hoc quod matrem comitem habuisse perhibetur; divina vero, in hoc quod verus Dei filius demonstratur; sequitur enim et his qui vendebant columbas dixit: auferte ista hinc, et nolite facere domum patris mei domum negotiationis. BEDE; The Evangelist sets before us both natures of Christ: the human in that His mother accompanied Him to Capernaum; the divine, in that He said, Make not My Father’s house an house of merchandise
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ecce patrem vocat, et non irascuntur: aestimant enim simpliciter eum dicere; sed quia postea apertius loquebatur, ut solam repraesentaret parilitatis intelligentiam, propterea saeviebant. Et Matthaeus quidem dicit quod eiciens eos dicebat: nolite facere domum meam speluncam latronum: illud enim fecit ad passionem veniens, ideo durioribus sermonibus utebatur; hoc autem in principio signorum fecit; unde non ita aspera, sed remissa quodammodo increpatione utitur. CHRYS. Lo, He speaks of God as His Father, and they are not angry, for they think He means it in a common sense. But afterwards when He spoke more openly, and showed that He meant equality, they were enraged. In Matthew’s account too, on driving them out, He says, You have made it (My Father’s house) a den of thieves. This was just: before His Passion, and therefore He uses severer language. But the former being at the beginning of His miracles, His answer is milder and more indulgent.
Augustinus: Ecce templum illud figura adhuc erat, et eiecit inde dominus omnes qui ad nundinas venerant. Et quae ibi vendebant? Quae opus habebant homines in sacrificio illius temporis. Quid si ibi ebriosos inveniret? Si negotiationis non debet fieri domus Dei, potationis fieri debet? AUG. So that temple was still a figure only, and our Lord cast out of it all who came to it as a market. And what did they sell? Things that were necessary for the sacrifice of that time. What if He had found men drunken? If the house of God ought not to be a house of merchandise, ought it to be a house of drunkenness?
Chrysostomus: Sed cuius gratia tali vehementia Christus usus est? Quia enim in sabbato curaturus erat, et multa facturus quae videbantur eis esse legis transgressio, ut non videatur Deo contrarius, hoc cum periculo fecit, dans intelligere quod qui periculis se exponit pro bono ornatu domus, dominum domus non contemnit: et ideo, ut ostenderet sui consonantiam ad Deum, non dixit: domum sanctam, sed domum patris mei. Et propter hoc etiam subditur recordati vero sunt discipuli eius quia scriptum est: zelus domus tuae comedit me. CHRYS. But why did Christ use such violence? He was about to heal on the Sabbath day, and to do many things which appeared to them transgressions of the Law. That He might not appear therefore to be acting contrary to God, He did this at His own peril; and thus gave them to understand, that He who exposed Himself to such peril to defend the decency of the house, did not despise the Lord of that house. For the same reason, to show His agreement with God, He said not, the Holy house, but, My Father’s house. It follows, And His disciples remembered what was written; The zeal of your house has eaten me up.
Beda: Discipuli enim videntes in eo hunc ferventissimum zelum, recordati sunt quia zelo domus patris salvator eiecit impios de templo. BEDE; His disciples seeing this most fervent zeal in Him, remembered that it was from zeal for His Father’s house that our Savior drove the ungodly from the temple.
Alcuinus: Zelus, cum in bono accipitur, est quidam fervor animi, quo mens relicto humano timore pro defensione veritatis accenditur. ALCUIN. Zeal, taken in a good sense, is a certain fervor of the Spirit, by which the mind, all human fears forgotten, is stirred up to the defense of the truth.
Augustinus: Comeditur ergo zelus domus Dei, qui omnia quae videt ibi perversa cupit emendare: et si emendare non potest, tolerat et gemit. Si ergo in domo tua ne quid perversum fiat satagis, in domo Dei, ubi salus proposita est, debes pati, quantum in te est, si quid perversi videris? Amicus est? Admoneatur leniter; uxor est? Severissime frenetur; ancilla est? Etiam verberibus compescatur. Fac quicquid potes pro persona quam portas. AUG. He then is eaten up with zeal for God’s house, who desires to correct all that he sees wrong there; and, if he cannot correct, endures and mourns. In your house you busy yourself to prevent matters going wrong; in the house of God, where salvation is offered, ought you to be indifferent? Have you a friend? admonish him gently; a wife? coerce her severely; a maid-servant? even compel her with stripes. Do what you are able, according to your station.
Alcuinus: Mystice autem quotidie Deus spiritualiter suam Ecclesiam intrat, et qualiter ibi unusquisque conversetur attendit. Caveamus ergo ne in Ecclesia Dei fabulis, vel risibus, vel odiis, vel cupiditatibus vacemus, ne improvisus veniens nos flagellet, et de Ecclesia sua eiciat. ALCUIN. To take the passage mystically, God enters His Church spiritually every day, and marks each one’s behavior there. Let us be careful then, when we are in God’s Church, that we indulge not in stories, or jokes, or hatreds, or lusts, lest on a sudden He come and scourge us, and drive us out of His Church.
Origenes in Ioannem: Possibile enim est Hierosolymitanum quoque delicto subiacere, et capacissimos deviare: quod nisi post delictum citissime convertantur, capacitatem amittunt. Invenit igitur in templo, idest in sacris, vel in enuntiatione ecclesiastici sermonis, quosdam qui patris domum, domum negotiationis constituebant, qui scilicet venales exponunt boves, quos oportet servare ad aratrum, ne retrocedentes non disponantur ad regnum Dei; qui etiam praeferunt mammonam iniquitatis ovibus, ex quibus habent ornatus materiam; qui etiam solertiam columbarum privata qualibet amaritudine vilipendunt. Cum ergo hos invenerit salvator in domo sacrata, facto de funiculis flagello fugat illos una cum venalibus ovibus et bobus suis, et spargit aeris pondera velut indigna in domo Dei retineri, subvertitque constitutas tabulas in animabus avarorum, et mandat ne ulterius in domo Dei columbae vendantur. Arbitror autem et exemplum ipsum statuisse per praedicta secretius, ut intelligamus per hoc, si quid agi debeat erga sacram illam oblationem a sacerdotibus, non debere ritu sensibilium oblationum agi, nec legem observari debere, ut carnales Iudaei volebant: nam Iesu propellente boves et oves, iubente auferri columbas, quae ut plurimum offerebantur iuxta consuetudinem Iudaeorum, et subvertente mensas materialium nummorum non expresse, sed figuraliter continentium divinas impressiones, ea scilicet quae secundum legis Scripturam videbantur honesta, et utente eo in plebem flagellis, dissolvenda et dispergenda haec erant, translato regno ad eos qui ex gentibus crediderunt. ORIGEN; It is possible even for the dweller in Jerusalem to incur guilt, and even the most richly endowed may stray. And unless these repent speedily, they lose the capacity wherewith they were endued. He finds them in the temple, i.e. in sacred places, or in the office of enunciating the Church’s truths, some who make His Father’s house an house of merchandise; i.e. who expose to sale the oxen whom they ought to reserve for the plough, lest by turning back they should become unfit for the kingdom of God: also who prefer the unrighteous mammon to the sheep, from which they have the material of ornament; also who for miserable gain abandon the watchful care of them who are called metaphorically doves, without all gall or bitterness. Our Savior finding these in the holy house, makes a scourge of small cords, and drives them out, together with the sheep and oxen exposed for sale, scatters the heaps of money, as unbeseeming in the house of God, and overthrows the tables set up in the minds of the covetous, forbidding them to sell doves in the house of God any longer. I think too that He meant the above, as a mystical intimation that whatsoever was to be performed with regard to that sacred oblation by the priests, was not to be performed after the manner of material oblations, and that the law was not to be observed as the carnal Jews wished. For our Lord, by driving away the sheep and oxen, and ordering away the doves, which were the most common offerings among the Jews, and by overthrowing the tables of material coins, which in a figure only, not in truth, bore the Divine stamp, (i.e. what according to the letter of the law seemed good,) and when with His own hand He scourged the people, He as much as declared that the dispensation was to be broken up and destroyed, and the kingdom translated to the believing from among the Gentiles.
Augustinus: Vel vendentes in Ecclesia sunt qui quae sua sunt quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi. Venale habent totum, quia volunt redimi. Simon ideo volebat emere spiritum sanctum, quia vendere volebat: erat enim de illis qui columbas vendunt: etenim in columba apparuit spiritus sanctus: columba autem non est venalis; gratis datur, quia gratis vocatur. AUG. Or, those who sell in the Church, are those who seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. They who will not be bought, think they may sell earthly things. Thus Simon wished to buy the Spirit, that he might sell Him: for he was one of those who sell doves. (The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove.) The dove however is not sold, but is given of free grace; for it is called grace.
Beda: Vendunt igitur columbas qui acceptam spiritus sancti gratiam non gratis, ut praeceptum est, sed ad praemium dant; qui manuum impositionem, qua spiritus sanctus accipitur, etsi non in quaestum pecuniae, ad vulgi tamen favorem tribuunt; qui sacros ordines non ad vitae meritum, sed ad gratiam largiuntur. BEDE; They then are the sellers of doves, who, after receiving the free grace of the Holy Spirit, do not dispense it freely , as they are commanded, but at a price: who confer the laying on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit is received, if not for money, at least for the sake of getting favor with the people, who bestow Holy Orders not according to merit, but favor.
Augustinus: Boves autem intelliguntur apostoli et prophetae, qui nobis Scripturas sacras dispensaverunt. Qui ergo ipsis Scripturis fallunt populos a quibus quaerunt honores, vendunt boves, vendunt et oves, idest ipsas plebes, et cui vendunt, nisi Diabolo? Quidquid enim de unica Ecclesia praeciditur, quis tollit nisi leo rugiens? AUG. By the oxen may be understood the Apostles and Prophets, who have dispensed to us the holy Scriptures. Those who by these very Scriptures deceive the people, from whom they seek honor, sell the oxen; and they sell the sheep too, i.e. the people themselves; and to whom do they sell them, but to the devil? For that which is cut off from the one Church, who takes away, except the roaring lion, who goes about every where, and seeks whom he may devour?
Beda: Vel oves sunt opera munditiae et pietatis. Vendunt ergo oves qui humanae gratia laudis pietatis exercent. Nummos mutuo dant in templo qui aperte terrenis rebus in Ecclesia deserviunt. Domum etiam domini faciunt domum negotiationis, non solum hi qui propter sacros ordines pretium pecuniae vel laudis vel honoris quaerunt; verum etiam hi qui gradum vel gratiam spiritualem, quam in Ecclesia domino largiente perceperunt, non simplici intentione, sed cura humanae retributionis exercent. BEDE; Or, the sheep are works of purity and piety, and they sell the sheep, who do works of piety to gain the praise of men. They exchange money in the temple, who, in the Church, openly devote themselves to secular business. And besides those who seek for money, or praise, or honor from Holy Orders, those too make the Lord’s house a house of merchandise, who do not employ the rank, or spiritual grace, which they have received in the Church at the Lord’s hands, with singleness of mind, but with an eye to human recompense.
Augustinus: Signum autem quoddam nobis ostendit dominus, quod fecit flagellum de resticulis, et inde negotiationem in templo facientes flagellavit. Etenim unusquisque in peccatis suis restem sibi texit, dum peccata addit peccatis. Quando ergo aliquid patiuntur homines propter iniquitates suas, agnoscant quia dominus facit flagellum de resticulis, et adhuc admonet eos ut mutent se: nam si se non mutaverint, audient in fine: ligate illi manus et pedes. AUG. Our Lord intended a meaning to be seen in His making a scourge of small cords, and then scourging those who were carrying on the merchandise in the temple. Every one by his sins twists for himself a cord, in that he goes on adding sin to sin. So then when men suffer for their iniquities, let them be sure that it is the Lord making a scourge of small cords, and admonishing them to change their lives: which if they fail to do, they will hear at the last, Bind him hand and foot.
Beda: Facto igitur de funiculis flagello, illos eiecit de templo: quia de parte sortis sanctorum eiciuntur qui inter sanctos positi, vel ficte bona, vel aperte faciunt opera mala. Oves quoque et boves eiecit: quia talium vitam pariter et doctrinam ostendit esse reprobam. Nummulariorum quoque effudit aes, et mensas subvertit; quia damnatis in fine reprobis, etiam ipsarum quas dilexerunt rerum tollet figuram. Venditionem columbarum de templo auferri praecepit: quia gratia spiritus, quae gratis accipitur, gratis dari debet. BEDE; With a scourge then made of small cords, He cast them out of the temple; for from the part and lot of the saints are cast out all, who, thrown externally among the Saints, do good works hypocritically, or bad openly. The sheep and the oxen too He cast out, to show that the life and the doctrine of such were alike reprobate. And He overthrew the change heaps of the money-changers and their tables, as a sign that, at the final condemnation of the wicked, He will take away the form even of those things which they loved. The sale of doves He ordered to be removed out of the temple, because the grace of the Spirit, being freely received, should be freely given.
Origenes: Potest etiam per templum intelligi anima studiosi, propter inhabitans verbum Dei, in qua ante doctrinam Iesu constiterant terrestres et bestiales motus. Signum autem terrestrium motuum bos est, quoniam est agri cultor; insensatorum autem motuum ovis, quod est pluribus animalibus irrationalius; levium vero atque inconstantium mentium signum est columba; eorum vero qui boni videntur, signa sunt aera, quae Christus verbo doctrinae expellit, ut non ultra domus patris eius sit forum. ORIGEN; By the temple we may understand too the soul wherein the Word of God dwells; in which, before the teaching of Christ, earthly and bestial affections had prevailed. The ox being the tiller of the soil, is the symbol of earthly affections: the sheep, being the most irrational of all animals, of dull ones; the dove is the type of light and volatile thoughts; and money, of earthly good things; which money Christ cast out by the Word of His doctrine, that His Father’s house might be no longer a market.

Lectio 5
18 ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν, ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; 19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. 20 εἶπαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν; 21 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. 22 ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
18. Then answered the Jews and said to him, What sign show you to us, seeing that you do these things? 19. Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will you rear it up in three days? 21. But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this to them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Theophylactus: Quia Iudaei videbant Iesum talia facere cum potestate multa, et dicentem nolite facere domum patris mei, domum negotiationis: signum ab eo petunt; unde dicitur responderunt ergo Iudaei, et dixerunt ei: quod signum ostendis nobis, quia haec facis? THEOPHYL. The Jews seeing Jesus thus acting with power, and having heard Him say, Make not My Father’s house a house of merchandise, ask of Him a sign; Then answered the Jews and said to Him, What sign show You to us, seeing that You do these things?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed numquid signa opus erant ut ea quae male fiebant cessare faceret? Nonne zelum talem accipere pro domo Dei maximum signum virtutis erat? Non autem illius prophetiae meminerant; sed signum petebant, simul quidem de suo turpi lucro impedito dolentes, simul autem et per hoc prohibere eum volentes: opinantur enim eum aut provocare ad miracula, aut cessare ab his quae fiebant. Propterea non dat eis signum, sicut et petentibus signum respondit dicens: generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae. Sed tunc quidem manifestius, nunc autem obscurius respondet idem. Non autem is utique qui non petentes praeoccupat, et signa dat, hic petentes avertisset, nisi mentem eorum cognovisset dolosam; sequitur enim et dixit eis: solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. CHRYS. But were signs necessary for His putting a stop to evil practices? Was not the having such zeal for the house of God, the greatest sign of His virtue? They did not however remember the prophecy, but asked for a sign; at once irritated at the loss of their base gains, and wishing to prevent Him from going further. For this dilemma, they thought, would oblige Him either to work miracles, or give up His present course. But He refuses to give them the sign, as He did on a like occasion, when He answers, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet; only the answer is more open there than here. He however who even anticipated men’s wishes, and gave signs when He was not asked, would not have rejected here a positive request, had He not seen a crafty design in it. As it was, Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Beda: Quia enim signum quaerebant a domino, quare solita commercia proicere debuerit ex templo; respondit: quia ipsum templum significabat templum corporis sui, in quo nulla prorsus esset alicuius macula peccati; quasi dicat: sicut inanimatum templum a vestris commerciis sceleribusque mea expio potestate, ita et hoc corporis mei templum, cuius istud gestat figuram, vestris manibus dissolutum, tertia die resuscitabo. BEDE; For inasmuch as they sought a sign from our Lord of His right to eject the customary merchandise from the temple, He replied, that that temple signified the temple of His Body, in which was no spot of sin; as if He said, As by My power I purify your inanimate temple from your merchandise and wickedness; so the temple of My Body, of which that is the figure, destroyed by your hands, on the third day I will raise again.
Theophylactus: Nequaquam tamen illos ad homicidium provocat dicens solvite; sed hoc eis affectantibus, non sibi esse absconditum demonstrat. Audiant autem Ariani, quomodo dominus mortis destructor dixit excitabo, virtute videlicet propria. THEOPHYL. He does not however provoke them to commit murder, by saying, Destroy; but only shows that their intentions were not hidden from Him. Let the Arians observe how our Lord, as the destroyer of death, says, I will raise it up; that is to say, by My own power.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Resuscitavit eum quidem et pater, cui dicit: excita me, et reddam illis. Sed quid fecit pater sine verbo? Quomodo ergo eum pater resuscitat, sic et filius resuscitavit: quia filius dixit: ego et pater unum sumus. AUG. The Father also raised Him up again; to Whom He says, Raise You me up, and I shall reward them. But what did the Father do without the Word? As then the Father raised Him up, so did the Son also: even as He said below, I and My Father are one.
Chrysostomus: Propter quid autem signum resurrectionis dat eis? Quoniam scilicet hoc maxime erat quod ostendebat eum non esse hominem purum, posse adversus mortem statuere triumphum, et tyrannidem eius longam velociter dissolvere. CHRYS. But why does He give them the sign of His resurrection? Because this was the greatest proof that He was not a mere man; showing, as it did, that He could triumph over death, and in a moment overthrow its long tyranny.
Origenes: Utraque autem, scilicet et corpus Iesu et templum, exemplar mihi fore videntur Ecclesiae, eo quod ex vivis lapidibus construitur in domum spiritualem, in sacerdotium sanctum, et propter illud: vos estis corpus Christi et membra de membro. Quamvis autem dissolvi lapidum videatur structura ac dissipari omnia ossa Christi adversitatibus tribulationum; instaurabitur tamen templum, ac resuscitabitur die tertia, quae in novo caelo et nova terra praesens erit. Sicut enim illud Christi corpus sensibile crucifixum est ac sepultum, et postea resurrexit; sic et totale sanctorum Christi corpus concrucifixum est Christo: quilibet enim eorum in nullo alio gloriatur nisi in cruce Christi, per quam ipse crucifixus est mundo. Sed et consepultus est Christo et resurrexit cum eo, quia in quadam novitate vitae ambulat. Sed secundum beatam resurrectionem nondum surrexit; unde non scriptum est: tertia die restaurabo illud, sed in tribus diebus: perficitur enim eius erectio in omnibus tribus diebus. ORIGEN. Both those, i.e. both the Body of Jesus and the temple, seem to me to be a type of the Church, which with lively stones is built up into a spiritual house, into an holy priesthood; according to St. Paul, You are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And though the structure of stones seem to be broken up, and all the bones of Christ scattered by adversities and tribulations, yet shall the temple be restored, and raised up again in three days, and established in the new heaven and the new earth. For as that sensible body of Christ was crucified and buried, and afterward rose again; so the whole body of Christ’s saints was crucified with Christ, (each glorying in that cross, by which He Himself too was crucified to the world,) and, after being buried with Christ, has also risen with Him, walking in newness of life. Yet have we not risen yet in the power of the blessed resurrection, which is still going on, and is yet to be completed. Whence it is not said, On the third day I will build it up, but, in three days; for the erection is being in process throughout the whole of the three days.
Theophylactus: Iudaei enim de inanimato templo putantes eum hoc dicere, deridebant eum; unde sequitur dixerunt ergo Iudaei: quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, et tu in tribus diebus excitabis illud? THEOPHYL. The Jews, supposing that He spoke of the material temple, scoffed: Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will You rear it up in three days?
Alcuinus: Et notandum, quod non de prima aedificatione, quae a Salomone septem annis perfecta est, sed de reaedificatione, quae facta est sub Zorobabel per quadraginta et sex annos impedientibus inimicis respondebant. ALCUIN. Note, that they allude here not to the first temple under Solomon, which was finished in seven years, but to the one rebuilt under Zorobabel. This was forty-six years building, in consequence of the hindrance raised by the enemies of the work.
Origenes: Vel dicit aliquis, quadraginta et sex annorum exsurgere computum, ex quo David allocutus est Nathan prophetam consulens de constructione templi, ex tunc satagens ad congregandam materiam templi. Animadverte vero si possibile est quadragenarium numerum statui erga templum propter quatuor elementa mundi, ac senarium propter hoc quod homo sexto die creatus est. ORIGEN. Or some will reckon perhaps the forty and six years from the time that David consulted Nathan the Prophet on the building of the temple. David from that time was busy in collecting materials. But perhaps the number forty may with reference to the four corners of the temple allude to the four elements of the world, and the number six, to the creation of man on the sixth day.
Augustinus de Trin: Vel hic numerus perfectioni dominici corporis apte congruit; quadragies enim sexies seni fiunt ducenta septuaginta sex; qui numerus dierum complet novem menses et sex dies. Ipsa autem perfectio corporis domini tot diebus ad partum producta comperitur, sicut a maioribus traditum suscipiens Ecclesiae custodit auctoritas. Octavo enim Kalendas Aprilis conceptus creditur, quo et passus; natus autem traditur octavo Kalendas Ianuarii. Ab illo ergo die usque ad istum computati ducenti septuaginta sex reperiuntur dies, qui senarium numerum quadragies sexies habent. AUG. Or it may be that this number fits in with the perfection of the Lord’s Body. For six times forty-six are two hundred and seventy-six days, which make up nine months and six days, the time that our Lord’s Body was forming in the womb; as we know by authoritative traditions handed down from our fathers, and preserved by the Church. He was, according to general belief, conceived on the eighth of the Kalends of April, the one which He suffered, and born on the eighth of the Kalends of January. The intervening time contains two hundred and seventy-six days, i.e. six multiplied by forty.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Dicitur etiam conceptio humana sic procedere, et perfici primis sex diebus, quasi lactis habeat similitudinem, sequentibus novem diebus convertatur in sanguinem, deinde duodecim diebus solidetur, reliquis decem et octo diebus formetur usque ad perfecta lineamenta omnium membrorum; et in reliquo tempore usque ad tempus partus magnitudine augeatur. Sex autem et novem et duodecim et decem et octo in unum coacti, fiunt quadraginta quinque: addito ergo uno fiunt quadraginta sex; qui si fuerint multiplicati per ipsum senarium numerum, qui huius ordinationis caput tenet, fiunt ducenti septuaginta sex, idest novem menses, et sex dies. Non ergo absurde quadraginta sex annis dicitur fabricatum esse templum, quod corpus eius significabat; ut quot anni fuerint in fabricatione templi, tot dies fuerint in corporis dominici perfectione. AUG. The process of human conception is said to be this. The first six days produce a substance like milk, which in the following nine is converted into blood; in twelve more is consolidated, in eighteen more is formed into a perfect set of limbs, the growth and enlargement of which fills up the rest of the time till the birth. For six, and nine, and twelve, and eighteen, added together are forty-five, and with the addition of one (which stands for the summing up, all these numbers being collected into one) forty-six. This multiplied by the number six, which stands at the head of this calculation, makes two hundred and seventy-six, i.e. nine months a and six days. It is no unmeaning information then that the temple was forty and six years building; for the temple prefigured His Body, and as many years as the temple was in building, so many days was the Lord’s Body in forming.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Quia dominus noster de Adam corpus accepit, non de Adam peccatum traxit; templum corporeum inde sumpsit, non iniquitatem, quae de templo pellenda est. Si autem facias quatuor nomina Graeca, anatoli, quod est oriens, dysis, quod est occidens, Arctos, quod est Septemtrio, mesembria, quod est meridies, capita verborum Adam habent. A quatuor enim ventis dominus collecturum se dicit electos suos cum venerit ad iudicium. Habent autem litterae nominis Adam numerum secundum Graecos; et ibi invenitur quadragintasex annis aedificatum templum. Habet enim Adam alpha, quod est unum; et delta, quod quatuor; et alpha, quod est unum; et mi, quod est quadraginta: et sic habet quadragintasex. Sed Iudaei, quia caro erant, carnalia sapiebant; ille spiritualiter loquebatur, et de quo templo diceret, per Evangelistam nobis aperuit; sequitur enim ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. AUG. Or thus, if you take the four Greek words, anatole, the east; dysis, the west; arctos, the north; and mesembria, the south; the first letters of these words make Adam. And our Lord says that He will gather together His saints from the four winds, when He comes to judgment. Now these letters of the word Adam, make up, according to Greek figuring, the number of the years during which the temple was building. For in Adam we have alpha, one; delta, four; alpha again, one; and forty; making up together forty-six. The temple then signifies the body derived from Adam; which body our Lord did not take in its sinful state, but renewed it, in that after the Jews had destroyed it, He raised it again the third day. The Jews however, being carnal, understood carnally; He spoke spiritually. He tells us, by the Evangelist, what temple He means; But He spoke of the temple of His Body.
Theophylactus: Ex hoc autem Apollinarius contradictionem sumit, volens ostendere, quod caro Christi esset inanimata, eo quod templum sit inanimatum: ergo carnem Christi et lapidem et lignum facies, quia ex his templum consistit. Si autem quod dicitur: anima mea turbata est; et: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam; nequaquam de anima rationali dici dixeris; ubi pones illud: in manus tuas, domine, commendo spiritum meum? Non enim hoc de anima irrationali intelligere poteris: neque quod dicitur: non derelinques animam meam in Inferno. THEOPHYL. From this Apollinarius draws an heretical inference: and attempts to show that Christ’s flesh was inanimate, because the temple was inanimate. In this way you will prove the flesh of Christ to be wood and stone, because the temple is composed of these materials. Now if you refuse to allow what is said, Now is My soul troubled; and, I have power to lay it (My life) down, to be said of the rational soul, still how will you interpret, Into Your hands, O Lord, I commend My spirit? you cannot understand this of an irrational soul: or again, the passage, You shall not leave My soul in hell.
Origenes: Ideo autem corpus domini templum intelligitur, quia sicut templum gloriam Dei continebat habitantem in ipso, sic corpus Christi repraesentans Ecclesiam, unigenitum continet, qui est imago Dei et gloria. ORIGEN. Our Lord’s Body is called the temple, because as the temple contained the glory of God dwelling therein, so the Body of Christ, which represents the Church, contains the Only-Begotten, Who is the image and glory of God.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Duo autem erant quae obstabant discipulis ne interim intelligerent: unum ipsa resurrectio; alterum vero, quod maius erat, scilicet quod Deus erat qui in illo corpore habitabat; quod dominus occulte ostenderat, dicens solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo illud. Et ideo subditur cum ergo resurrexisset a mortuis, recordati sunt discipuli eius quia hoc dicebat de corpore suo, et crediderunt Scripturae, et sermoni quem dixit Iesus. CHRYS. Two things there were in the mean time very far removed from the comprehension of the disciples: one, the resurrection of our Lord’s Body: the other, and the greater mystery, that it was God who dwelt in that Body: as our Lord declares by saying, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. And thus it follows, When therefore He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
Alcuinus: Ante resurrectionem enim non intelligebant Scripturas, quia nondum acceperant spiritum sanctum; sed in die resurrectionis apparens dominus aperuit discipulis sensum ut intelligerent quae de ipso scripta erant in lege et prophetis; et tunc crediderunt Scripturae prophetarum, qui praedixerunt Christum tertia die resurrecturum, et sermoni quem dixit Iesus solvite templum hoc. ALCUIN. For before the resurrection they did not understand the Scriptures, because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost, Who was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. But on the day of the resurrection our Lord appeared and opened their meaning to His disciples; that they might understand what was said of Him in the Law and the Prophets. And then they believed the prediction of the Prophets that Christ would rise the third day, and the word which Jesus had spoken to them: Destroy this temple, &c.
Origenes in Ioannem: Secundum anagogem vero, complementum fidei attingemus in magna resurrectione totius corporis Iesu, idest Ecclesiae eius; cum fides quae est ex specie, multum differat ab ea quae est per speculum in aenigmate. ORIGEN. But (in the mystical interpretation) we shall attain to the full measure of faith, at the great resurrection of the whole body of Jesus, i.e. His Church; inasmuch as the faith which is from sight, is very different from that which sees as through a glass darkly.

Lectio 6
23 ὡς δὲ ἦν ἐν τοῖς Ἰεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θεωροῦντες αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει: 24 αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας, 25 καὶ ὅτι οὐ χρείαν εἶχεν ἵνα τις μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.
23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24. But Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men. 25. And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

Beda: Superius Evangelista narravit quid dominus Ierusalem adveniens gesserit; nunc vero eodem Hierosolymis commorante, quid ab aliis erga eum actum fuerit refert; unde dicitur cum autem esset Hierosolymis in Pascha in die festo, multi crediderunt in nomine eius, videntes signa quae faciebat. BEDE. The Evangelist has related above what our Lord did on his way to Jerusalem; now He relates how others were affected towards Him at Jerusalem; Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His Name, when they saw the miracles which He did.
Origenes: Respiciendum autem quomodo ex signis eius plerique videntes credebant in eum. Non enim dicitur prodigia fecisse Hierosolymis, nisi forte, cum facta sint, in Scripturis non habeantur. Animadverte vero si possibile est in miraculis deputari quod fecerit flagellum ex funiculis, et cunctos ex templo propulerit. ORIGEN. But how was it that many believed in Him from seeing His miracles? for he seems to have performed not supernatural works at Jerusalem, except we suppose Scripture to have passed them over. May not however the act of His making a scourge of small cords, and driving all out of the temple, be reckoned a miracle?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Prudentiores autem fuerant discipuli, qui ad Christum accesserant, non propter signa sed propter doctrinam; nam grossiores quidem per signa trahuntur, rationabiliores vero per prophetias seu doctrinam; unde subditur ipse autem Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis. CHRYS Those had been wiser disciples, however, who were brought to Christ not by His miracles, but by His doctrine. For it is the duller sort who are attracted by miracles; the more rational are convinced by prophecy, or doctrine. And therefore it follows, But Jesus did not commit Himself to them.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quid sibi vult hoc illi credebant in nomine eius, et ipse Iesus non credebat semetipsum eis? An forte non credebant ei, et fingebant se credidisse? Sed non diceret Evangelista multi crediderunt in nomine eius. Magna ergo res et mira. Credunt homines in Christum, et Christus non se credit hominibus, praesertim quia filius Dei est, et utique volens passus est, et si nollet, nunquam pateretur. Sed tales sunt omnes catechumeni. Si dixerimus catechumeno: credis Christo? Respondet: credo, et signat se. Si interrogemus eum: manducas carnem filii hominis? Nescit quid dicimus, quia Iesus non se credidit ei. AUG. What means this, Many believed in His Name but Jesus did not commit Himself to them? Was it that they did not believe in Him, but only pretended that they did? In that case the Evangelist would not have said, Many believed in His Name. Wonderful this, and strange, that men should trust Christ, and Christ trusts not Himself to men; especially considering that He was the Son of God, and suffered voluntarily, or else need not have suffered at all. Yet such are all catechumens. If we say to a catechumen, Believe you in Christ? he answers, I do believe, and crosses himself. If we ask him, Do you eat the flesh of the Son of man? he knows not what we say for Jesus has not committed Himself to him.
Origenes in Ioannem: Vel dicendum, quod Iesus non se credidit credentibus in nomine eius, et non in illum. In illum enim credunt qui angustam viam vadunt ducentem ad vitam: qui autem credunt signis, non in eum, sed in nomine eius credunt. ORIGEN. Or, it was those who believed in His Name, not in Him, to whom Jesus would not commit Himself. They believe in Him, who follow the narrow way which leads to life; they believe in His Name, who only believe the miracles.
Chrysostomus: Vel hoc dicit, quia non confidebat in eis ut in discipulis perfectis, neque committebat eis omnia dogmata, ut iam firmiter fidelibus fratribus: non enim intendebat exterioribus verbis, ad mentem eorum intrans, et tempus opportunum manifeste sciens; unde sequitur eo quod ipse nosset omnes, et quia opus non erat ut quis testimonium perhiberet de homine: ipse enim sciebat quid esset in homine. Scire enim ea quae sunt in corde hominum, est Dei, qui solus corda plasmavit. Non indiget ergo testibus, ut propriorum plasmatum mentem addiscat. CHRYS. Or it means that He did not place confidence in them, as perfect disciples, and did not, as if they were brethren of confirmed faith, commit to them all His doctrines, for He did not attend to their outward words, but entered into their hearts, and well knew how short-lived was their zeal. Because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man. To know what is in man’s heart, is in the power of God alone, who fashioned the heart. He does not want witnesses, to inform Him of that mind, which was of His own fashioning.
Augustinus: Plus etiam noverat artifex quid esset in opere suo, quam ipsum opus quid esset in semetipso. Nam et Petrus non noverat quid in ipso esset quando dixit: tecum ero usque ad mortem; sed dominus noverat quid esset in homine, dicens: priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. AUG. The Maker knew better what was in His own work, than the work knew what was in itself. Peter knew not what was in himself when he said, I will go with You to death; but our Lord’s answer showed that He knew what was in man; Before the cock crow, you shall thrice deny Me.
Beda: Quapropter monemur ut nunquam de conscientia nostra securi simus, sed semper solliciti formidemus: quia quod nos latet, aeternum arbitrum latere non valet. BEDE. An admonition to us not to be confident of ourselves, but ever anxious and mistrustful; knowing that what escapes our own knowledge, cannot escape the eternal Judge.

CHAPTER III
Lectio 1
1 ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν φαρισαίων, Νικόδημος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων: 2 οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος: οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται ταῦτα τὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖν ἃ σὺ ποιεῖς, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ ὁ θεὸς μετ' αὐτοῦ. 3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
1. There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him. 3. Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Superius dixerat quod, cum esset Hierosolymis (...) multi crediderunt in nomine eius, videntes signa et prodigia quae faciebat; ex his autem erat Nicodemus, de quo dicitur erat autem homo ex Pharisaeis Nicodemus nomine. AUG. He had said above that, when He was at Jerusalem many believed in His Name, when they saw the miracles which He did. Of this number was Nicodemus, of whom we are told; There was a man of the Pharisees, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
Beda: Cuius etiam dignitatis officium ostendit, cum subditur princeps Iudaeorum; deinde quid egerit, cum subiecit hic venit ad Iesum nocte, cupiens scilicet secreta eius allocutione plenius discere mysteria fidei, cuius, aperta ostensione signorum, iam rudimenta perceperat. BEDE. His rank is given, A ruler of the Jews; and then what he did, This man came to Jesus by night: hoping, that is, by so secret an interview, to learn more of the mysteries of the faith; the late public miracles having given him an elementary knowledge of them.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Adhuc tamen a Iudaica detinebatur infirmitate: propterea et nocte venit, trepidans in die hoc facere; unde et Evangelista alibi dicit: quoniam ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum; sed propter Iudaeos non confitebantur, ut non extra synagogam fierent expulsi. CHRYS. As yet however he was withheld by Jewish infirmity: and therefore he came in the night, being afraid to come in the day. Of such the Evangelist speaks elsewhere, Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue.
Augustinus: Nicodemus etiam ex illo numero erat qui crediderunt, sed nondum renati sunt: unde hoc ad rem pertinet quod in nocte venit. Renati autem ex aqua et spiritu sancto, audiunt ab apostolo: fuistis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. AUG. Nicodemus was one of the number who believed, but were not as yet born again. Wherefore he came to Jesus by night. Whereas those who are born of water and the Holy Ghost, are addressed by the Apostle, You were sometimes darkness, but now are you light in the Lord.
Haymo: Vel pulchre in nocte venisse dicitur, quia tenebris ignorantiae obnubilatus, ad tantam lucem nondum pervenerat ut perfecte Deum verum crederet: nox enim in sacro eloquio pro ignorantia ponitur; unde subditur et dixit ei: Rabbi, scimus quia a Deo venisti magister. Quod autem Hebraice Rabbi, Latine dicitur magister. Magistrum ergo appellat, et Deum tacet: quia credebat eum a Deo missum, sed tamen, ut dictum est, Deum non agnoscebat. HAYMO. Or, well may it be said that he came in the night, enveloped, as he was, in the darkness of ignorance, and not yet come to the light, i.e. the belief that our Lord was very God. Night in the language of Holy Writ is put for ignorance. And said to him, Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God. The Hebrew Rabbi, has the meaning of Magister in Latin. He calls him, we see, a Master, but not God: he does not hint at that; he believes Him to be sent from God, but does not see that He is God.
Augustinus: Unde autem iste crediderat, patet per id quod subdit nemo enim potest haec signa facere quae tu facis, nisi fuerit Deus cum eo. Sic ergo Nicodemus de illis multis erat qui crediderant in nomine eius, videntes signa quae faciebat. AUG. What the ground of his belief was, is plain from what immediately follows: For no one can do these miracles that You do, except God be with him. Nicodemus then was one of the many who believed in His Name, when they saw the signs that He did.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed tamen neque a signis aliquid magnum existimabat de eo; sed adhuc humanam habens de eo mentem, ut de propheta loquitur, ad operationem eum missum dicens, et alieno auxilio indigentem haec agere quae agebat; cum tamen pater perfectum eum genuerit, et sufficientem sibi ipsi, et nihil habentem imperfectum. Quia vero Christi studium erat interim non ita dignitatem suam revelare, sicut persuadere quod nihil ex adverso agebat patri: propterea in verbis multoties humiliter loquens videtur, in rebus autem cum potestate omnia operatur. Ideoque et Nicodemo nunc manifeste quidem nihil excelsum loquitur de se ipso; occulte autem ab humili eum opinione reducit, docens quod sufficiens sibi ipse est in miraculorum operatione; unde subditur respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: amen, amen dico tibi: nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei. CHRYS. He did not however conceive any great idea of them from His miracles; and attributed to Him as yet only a human character, speaking of Him as a Prophet, sent to execute a commission, and standing in need of assistance to do His work; whereas the Father had begotten Him perfect, self-sufficient, and free from all defect. It being Christ’s design however for the present not so much to reveal His dignity, as to prove that He did nothing contrary to the Father; in words He is often humble, while His acts ever testify His power. And therefore to Nicodemus on this occasion He says nothing expressly to magnify Himself; but He imperceptibly corrects his low views of Him, and teaches him that He was Himself all-sufficient, and independent in His miraculous works. Hence He answers, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born again, the cannot see the kingdom of God.
Augustinus: Isti sunt ergo quibus se credit Iesus qui nati fuerint denuo, qui non in nocte veniunt ad Iesum, sicut Nicodemus; tales enim iam etiam profitentur. Dicit ergo nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo, non potest videre regnum Dei; quasi dicat: quia nondum es natus denuo, idest ex Deo, spirituali generatione, notitia quam habes de me, spiritualis non est, sed animalis et humana. Ego autem dico tibi, quod sive tu, sive alius quicumque, nisi ex Deo denuo natus fuerit, non poterit apprehendere gloriam quae circa me est; sed extra regnum erit; nam generatio quae per Baptismum fit, illuminationem animae tribuit. AUG. Those then are the persons to whom Jesus commits Himself, those born again, who come not in the night to Jesus, as Nicodemus did. Such persons immediately make profession.
Chrysostomus: Vel littera talis est: amen, amen dico tibi: nisi quis renatus fuerit, etc.; hoc est, si tu non natus fueris desuper, et dogmatum susceperis certitudinem alicubi, extra erras, et longe es a regno caelorum; seipsum hic ostendens, et indicans quoniam non est hoc tantum quod videtur: sed aliis oculis opus est ad videndum eum. Hoc autem quod dicit desuper, hi quidem, idest de caelo, exponunt; alii vero, a principio. Igitur Iudaei quidem si hoc audissent, deridentes utique discessissent; hic vero et in hoc amorem discipuli ostendit quod a Christo ulterius interrogat. CHRYS. He says therefore, Except a man be born again, be cannot see the kingdom of God: as if He said, You are not yet born again, i.e. of God, by a spiritual begetting; and therefore your knowledge of Me is not spiritual, but carnal and human. But I say to you, that neither you, nor any one, except he be born again of God, shall be able to see the glory which is around me, but shall be out of the kingdom: for it is the begetting by baptism, which enlightens the mind. Or the meaning is, Except you are born from above, and have received the certainty of my doctrines, you wander out of the way, and are far from the kingdom of heaven. By which words our Lord discloses His nature, showing that He is more than what He appears to the outward eye. The expression, From above, means, according to some, from heaven, according to others, from the beginning. Had the Jews heard it, they would have left Him in scorn; but Nicodemus shows the love of a disciple, by staying to ask more questions.


Lectio 2
4 λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν [ὁ] Νικόδημος, πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι; 5 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. 6 τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν. 7 μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν. 8 τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει: οὕτως ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.
4. Nicodemus said to him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7. Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again. 8. The wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and whither it goes; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Veniens Nicodemus ad Iesum ut ad hominem, audiens maiora quam ab homine, erigitur ad altitudinem eorum quae dicuntur, non quidem excidens a fide; sed infert hanc impossibilitatem, ut in apertiorem provocet doctrinam. Duo autem erant quae admirabatur: scilicet nativitas talis et regnum: neque enim audita erant apud Iudaeos. Sed interim circa prius instat, et quod maxime eius mentem concutiebat; unde dicitur dicit ad eum Nicodemus: quomodo potest homo nasci, cum sit senex? Numquid potest in ventrem matris suae iterato introire, et renasci? CHRYS. Nicodemus coming to Jesus, as to a man, is startled on learning greater things than man could utter, things too lofty for him. His mind is darkened, and he does not stand firm, but reels like one on the point of falling away from the faith. Therefore he objects to the doctrine as being impossible, in order to call forth a fuller explanation. Two things there are which astonish him, such a birth, and such a kingdom; neither yet heard of among the Jews. First he urges the former difficulty, as being the greatest marvel. Nicodemus, said to him, How can a man be born when be is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Beda: Sic verba ista sonare videntur, quasi puer queat iterato in ventrem matris introire et renasci. Sed sciendum, quod ipse senex erat; ideoque de se protulit exemplum; ac si diceret: ego sum senex et meam quaero salutem: quomodo possum in ventrem matris introire et renasci? BEDE. The question put thus sounds as if a boy might enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born. But Nicodemus, we must remember, was an old man, and took his instance from himself; as if he said, I am an old man, and seek my salvation; how can I enter again into my mother’s womb, and be born?
Chrysostomus: Rabbi eum vocas, et a Deo venisse dicis; et non suscipis quae dicuntur, sed loqueris ad magistrum dictionem quae multam perturbationem inducit; hoc enim, scilicet quomodo quaerere, eorum est qui non valide credunt, et multi sic quaerentes, a fide deciderunt; hi quidem dicentes: quomodo Deus est incarnatus? Alii: quomodo mansit impassibilis? Propterea et hic propter anxietatem modum exquirit. Sed cum aliquis cogitationibus propriis spiritualia evertit, derisibilia loquitur. CHRYS. You call Him Rabbi, and say that He comes from God, and yet receive not His sayings, but use to your master a word which brings in endless confusion; for that how, is the inquiry of a man who has no strong belief; and many who have so inquired, have fallen from the faith; some asking, how God became incarnate? others, how He was born? Nicodemus here asks from anxiety. But observe when a man trusts spiritual things to reasonings of his own, how ridiculously he talks.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Spiritus enim loquitur, et ille carnem sapit: non noverat iste nisi unam nativitatem, scilicet ex Adam et Eva; et ex Deo et Ecclesia nondum noverat. Sic tamen tu intellige nativitatem spiritus quomodo intellexit Nicodemus nativitatem carnis: quomodo enim uterus non potest repeti, sic nec Baptismus. AUG. It is the Spirit that speaks, whereas he understands carnally; he knew of no birth save one, that from Adam and Eve; from God and the Church he knows of none. But do you so understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus did the birth of the flesh; for as the entrance into the womb cannot be repeated, so neither can baptism.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Nicodemo autem decidenti ad eam quae hic est nativitatem, Christus manifestius revelat spiritualis nativitatis modum; unde sequitur respondit Iesus: amen, amen dico tibi: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei. CHRYS. While Nicodemus stumbles, dwelling upon our birth here, Christ reveals more clearly the manner of our spiritual birth; Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ac si dicat: tu carnalem generationem intelligis; sed ex aqua et spiritu oportet quod nascatur homo propter regnum Dei. Si propter haereditatem patris hominis temporalem nascitur aliquis ex visceribus matris carnalis; et propter haereditatem patris Dei sempiternam nascatur ex visceribus Ecclesiae. Cum autem ex duobus homo consistat, ex corpore videlicet et anima, duplicem habet et huiusmodi modum generationis; aqua enim quae visibilis est, ad emundationem corporis intelligitur: spiritus vero invisibiliter concurrens, ad emundationem invisibilis animae innuitur. AUG. As if He said, You understand me to speak of a carnal birth; but a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, if he is to enter into the kingdom of God. If to obtain the temporal inheritance of his human father, a man must be born of the womb of his mother; to obtain the eternal inheritance of his heavenly Father, he must be born of the womb of the Church. And since man consists of two parts, body and soul, the mode even of this latter birth is twofold; water the visible part cleansing the body; the Spirit by His invisible cooperation, changing the invisible soul.
Chrysostomus: Si vero quis interrogat: qualiter ab aqua homo nascitur? Interrogo et ego: qualiter natus est Adam a terra? Sicut enim in principio subiciebatur elementum terra, totum vero opus plasmantis erat; ita et nunc subicitur elementum aqua, totum vero est spiritus gratiae. Tunc Paradisum dedit in conversationem; nunc autem caelum nobis aperuit. Sed quae est necessitas aquae his qui spiritum sanctum suscipiunt? Divina enim in ea perficiuntur symbola, sepultura et mortificatio, resurrectio et vita. Sicut enim in quodam sepulchro, in aqua nobis submergentibus capita, vetus homo sepelitur, et submersus deorsum occultatur, deinde novus rursus ascendit. Hoc etiam fit, ut discas quoniam virtus patris et filii et spiritus sancti omnia complet, et quod Christus tres dies ad resurgendum expectavit. Quod igitur est matrix fetui, hoc est fideli aqua: in aqua enim plasmatur, et figuratur; sed quod in matrice plasmatur, tempore indiget: quod vero in aqua, non ita, sed in uno momento omnia fiunt. Talis enim est natura corporum ut tempore assumant perfectionem; in spiritualibus vero non est ita; quoniam perfecta a principio constituuntur quae fiunt. Ex quo igitur ascendit a Iordane dominus, non adhuc reptilia animarum viventium, sed animas spirituales et rationabiles aqua reddit. CHRYS. If any one asks how a man is born of water, I ask in return, how Adam was born from the ground. For as in the beginning though the element of earth was the subject-matter, the man was the work of the fashioner; so now too, though the element of water is the subject-matter, the whole work is done by the Spirit of grace. He then gave Paradise for a place to dwell in; now He has opened heaven to us. But what need is there of water, to those who receive the Holy Ghost? It carries out the divine symbols of burial, mortification, resurrection, and life. For by the immersion of our heads in the water, the old man disappears and is buried as it were in a sepulcher, whence he ascends a new man. Thus should you learn, that the virtue of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, fills all things. For which reason also Christ lay three days in the grave before His resurrection. That then which the womb is to the offspring, water is to the believer; he is fashioned and formed in the water. But that which is fashioned in the womb needs time; whereas the water all is done in an instant. For the nature of the body is such as to require time for its completion; but spiritual creations are perfect from the beginning. From the time that our Lord ascended out of the Jordan, water produces no longer reptiles, i.e. living souls; but souls rational and endued with the Spirit.
Augustinus de Bapt. Parv: Sed quia non ait nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non habebit salutem, vel vitam aeternam; sed non intrabit in regnum Dei; ad hoc, inquiunt quidam, parvuli baptizandi sunt, ut sint cum Christo in regno Dei, ubi non erunt, si baptizati non fuerint; quamvis et sine Baptismo si parvuli moriantur, salutem vitamque aeternam habituri sint, quoniam nullo peccati vinculo astricti sunt. Sed cur nascatur denuo, nisi renovandus a vetustate? Aut unde imago Dei non intrat in regnum Dei, nisi impedimento prohibente peccati? AUG. Because He does not say, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not have salvation, or eternal life; but, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; from this, some infer that children are to be baptized in order to be with Christ in the kingdom of God, where they would not be, were they not baptized; but that they will obtain salvation and eternal life even if they die without baptism, not being bound with any chain of sin. But why is a man born again, except to be changed from his old into a new state? Or why does the image of God not enter into the kingdom of God, if it be not by reason of sin?
Haymo: Talia autem ac tanta secreta mysteria Nicodemo capere non valenti dominus ex carnali nativitate similitudinem dedit, dicens quod natum est ex carne, caro est; et quod natum est ex spiritu, spiritus est: sicut enim caro carnem procreat, ita quoque spiritus spiritum parit. HAYMO. But Nicodemus being unable to take in so great and deep mysteries, our Lord helps him by the analogy of our carnal birth, saying, That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. For as flesh generates flesh, so also does spirit, spirit.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Nihil igitur sensibilium inquiras, neque aestimes quod carnem generet spiritus: domini enim caro genita est non quidem a spiritu solum sed etiam a carne. Quod autem natum est ex spiritu, spirituale est. Nativitatem enim hic non eam quae secundum substantiam, dicit, sed eam quae secundum honorem et gratiam. Si igitur et filius Dei ita natus est, quid plus habebit omnibus qui ita nati sunt? Invenietur autem et spiritu minor, cum eius nativitas gratia spiritus sit. Et quomodo haec a Iudaicis distant dogmatibus? Vide autem et spiritus sancti dignitatem: Dei enim opus videtur facere. Supra enim dixit, quoniam ex Deo nati sunt; hic autem quoniam spiritus eos generat. Dicens autem Christus, quoniam qui natus est ex spiritu, spiritus est, quia turbatum rursus vidit, ad sensibile exemplum ducit sermonem, dicens non mireris quia dixi tibi: oportet vos nasci denuo. Dicendo enim ne mireris, ostendit animi eius turbationem. Ponit autem exemplum quod neque communionem aliquam ad corporum grossitiem habet, neque ad incorporeorum perveniens naturam, quod est venti delatio, dicens spiritus ubi vult spirat, et vocem eius audis: sed nescis unde veniat aut quo vadat. Sic est omnis qui natus est ex spiritu. Quod dicit, tale est. Si ventum nullus detinet, sed quo vult fertur: multo magis spiritus actionem, naturae leges detinere non poterunt, non terminus corporalis nativitatis, neque aliud quid talium. Quoniam autem de vento hic dictum est, manifestat illud quod dicit vocem eius audis, idest sonitum percussionis; non enim loquens infideli et nescienti spiritus actionem hoc diceret. Dicit autem ubi vult spirat, non quasi electionem quamdam vento habente, sed eam quae a natura est motionem, quae non prohibetur, et cum potestate fit. Et nescis unde veniat, aut quo vadat; idest, si huius spiritus, cuius sensum suscipis auditu et tactu, interpretari nescis viam, qualiter divini spiritus operationem scrutaris? Unde subdit sic est omnis qui natus est ex spiritu. CHRYS Do not look then for any material production, or think that the Spirit generates flesh; for even the Lord’s flesh is generated not by the Spirit only, but also by the flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spiritual. The birth here spoken of takes place not according to our substance, but according to honor and grace. But the birth of the Son of God is otherwise; for else what would He have been more than all who are born again? And He would be proved too inferior to the Spirit, inasmuch as His birth would be by the grace of the Spirit. How does this differ from the Jewish doctrine? - But mark next the part of the Holy Spirit, in the divine work. For whereas above some are said to be born of God, here, we find, the Spirit generates them. - The wonder of Nicodemus being roused again by the words, He who is born of the Spirit is spirit, Christ meets him again with an instance from nature; Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again. The expression, Marvel not, shows that Nicodemus was surprised at His doctrine. He takes for this instance some thing, not of the grossness of other bodily things, but still removed from the incorporeal nature, the wind; The wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. That is to say, if no one can restrain the wind from going where it will; much less can the laws of nature, whether the condition of our natural birth, or any other, restrain the action of the Spirit. That He speaks of the wind here is plain, from His saving, You hear the sound thereof, i.e. its noise when it strikes objects. He would not in talking to an unbeliever and ignorant person, so describe the action of the Spirit. He says, Blows where it lists; not meaning any power of choice in the wind, but only its natural movements, in their uncontrolled power. But can not tell whence it comes or whither it goes; i.e. If you can not explain the action of this wind which comes under the cognizance both of your feeling and hearing, why examine into the operation of the Divine Spirit? He adds, So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sed quis nostrum non videat verbi gratia Austrum euntem a meridie ad Aquilonem, aut alium ventum venientem ab oriente et occidente? Quomodo ergo nescimus unde veniat aut quo eat? AUG. But who of us does not see, for example, that the south wind blows from south to north, another wind from the east, another from the west? And how then do we not know whence the wind comes, and whither it goes?
Beda: Spiritus igitur sanctus est qui ubi vult spirat, quia ipse in potestate habet cuius cor gratia suae visitationis illustret. Et vocem eius audis, cum te praesente loquitur is qui spiritu sancto repletus est. BEDE. It is the Holy Spirit therefore, Who blows where He lists. It is in His own power to choose, whose heart to visit with in His enlightening grace. And you hear the sound thereof. When one filled with the Holy Spirit is present with you and speaks to you.
Augustinus: Sonat Psalmus, sonat Evangelium, sonat sermo divinus, vox spiritus est. Hoc igitur dicit, quia verbo et sacramento invisibiliter adest spiritus sanctus, ut nascamur. AUG. The Psalm sounds, the Gospel sounds, the Divine Word sounds; it is the sound of the Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit is invisibly present in the Word and Sacrament, to accomplish our birth.
Alcuinus: Ergo nescis unde veniat aut quo vadat; quia etsi te praesente spiritus ad horam quempiam repleverit, non potest videri quomodo in eum intraverit, vel quomodo redierit, quia natura est invisibilis. ALCUIN. Therefore, You know not whence it comes, or whither it goes; for, although the Spirit should possess a person in your presence at a particular time, it could not be seen how He entered into him, or how He went away again, because He is invisible.
Haymo: Sive nescis unde veniat, quia quomodo credentes ad fidem introducat ignoras; vel quo vadat, quia quomodo fideles ad spem perducat nescis; et sic est omnis qui natus est ex spiritu; ac si dicat: spiritus sanctus spiritus invisibilis est; ita et quisquis ex spiritu nascitur, invisibiliter nascitur. HAYMO. Or, You can not tell whence it comes; i.e. you know not how He brings believers to the faith; or whither it goes, i.e. how He directs the faithful to their hope. And so is every one that is born of the Spirit; as if He said, The Holy Spirit is an invisible Spirit; and in like manner, every one who is born of the Spirit is born invisibly.
Augustinus: Vel aliter. Et si tu nascaris de spiritu, hoc eris, ut ille qui non est natus adhuc de spiritu, nesciat unde venias aut quo eas; hoc enim secutus ait sic est omnis qui natus est ex spiritu. AUG. Or thus: If you are born of the Spirit, you will be such, that he, who is not yet born of the Spirit, will not know whence you come, or whither you go. For it follows, So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Theophylactus: Confundatur ergo Macedonius impugnator spiritus, qui servum spiritum sanctum asseruit: spiritus enim sanctus propria potestate et ubi vult, et qualiter vult operatur. THEOPHYL. This completely refutes Macedonius the impugner of the Spirit, who asserted that the Holy Ghost was a servant. The Holy Ghost, we find, works by His own power, where here He will, and what He will.

Lectio 3
9 ἀπεκρίθη Νικόδημος καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, πῶς δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι; 10 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις; 11 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν λαλοῦμεν καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε. 12 εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύσετε;
9. Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things be? 10. Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master of Israel, and know not these things? 11. Verily, verily, I say to you, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and you receive not our witness. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things.

Haymo: Mysteria divinae maiestatis Nicodemus capere non valet quae a domino audiebat: et ideo rationem quaerens, factum non abnegans, non voto reprehendentis, sed affectu discentis dominum interrogat; unde dicitur respondit Nicodemus, et dixit ei: quomodo possunt haec fieri? HAYMO. Nicodemus cannot take in the mysteries of the Divine Majesty, which our Lord reveals, and therefore asks how it is, not denying the fact, not meaning any censure, but wishing to be informed: Nicodemus answered and said to Him, How can these things be?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia igitur adhuc in Iudaica vilitate manet, et exemplo ita manifesto dicto ei, adhuc interrogat, de reliquo asperius ad eum Christus loquitur; unde sequitur respondit et dixit ei: tu es magister in Israel, et haec ignoras? CHRYS. Forasmuch then as he still remains a Jew, and, after such clear evidence, persists in a low and carnal system, Christ addresses him henceforth with greater severity: Jesus answered and said to him, Are you a master in Israel, and know not these things?
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quid putamus? Dominum huic magistro Iudaeorum quasi insultare voluisse? Volebat quidem illum nasci de spiritu: nemo autem ex spiritu nascitur nisi humilis fuerit, quia ipsa humilitas facit nos nasci de spiritu. Ille autem magisterio inflatus erat, et alicuius momenti sibi esse videbatur, quia doctor erat Iudaeorum. Deponit ergo dominus superbiam eius, ut possit nasci de spiritu. AUG. What think we? that our Lord wished to insult this master in Israel? He wished him to be born of the Spirit: and no one is born of the Spirit except he is made humble; for this very humility it is, which makes us to be born of the Spirit. He however was inflated with his eminence as a master, and thought himself of importance because he was a doctor of the Jews. Our Lord then casts down his pride, in order that he may be born of the Spirit.
Chrysostomus: Nequaquam tamen nequitiam accusat viri, sed insipientiam et ruditatem solum. Sed dicet aliquis: quid commune habet haec nativitas, de qua scilicet Christus locutus est, ad Iudaica dogmata? Habet quidem commune: nam qui primus homo factus est, et quae de costa facta est mulier, et quae steriles genuerunt, et quae per aquam miracula perfecta sunt: dico autem, quod Elisaeus de aqua ferrum eduxit, et quod Iudaei mare rubrum transierunt, et quod Naaman Syrus in Iordane purgatus est: haec omnia nativitatem spiritualem et purgamentum in ea futurum figuraliter personabant; et ea quae a prophetis sunt dicta, occulte ostendunt hunc nativitatis modum; ut puta illud: renovabitur ut aquilae iuventus tua; et: beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates. Sed et Isaac figura huius nativitatis erat. Haec igitur rememorans dixit tu es magister in Israel, et haec ignoras? Rursus autem aliunde suum sermonem ei credibilem facit, ad imbecillitatem eius condescendens, cum subdit amen, amen dico tibi, quia quod scimus loquimur, et quod vidimus testamur, et testimonium nostrum non accipitis. Apud nos visus aliis sensibus certior est; et si volumus aliquem facere credere, ita dicimus, quoniam oculis nostris vidimus. Propterea Christus humano loquens ad eum sermone, non visum sensibilem inducit; sed manifestum est quod de certissima cognitione et non aliter se habente loquitur. Igitur hoc quidem, idest quod scimus, ait de seipso solo. CHRYS. Nevertheless He does not charge the man with wickedness, but only with want of wisdom, and enlightenment. But some one will say, What connection has this birth, of which Christ speaks, with Jewish doctrines? Thus much. The first man that was made, the woman that was made out of his rib, the barren that bare, the miracles which were worked by means of water, I mean, Elijah’s bringing up the iron from the river, the passage of the Red Sea, and Naaman the Syrian’s purification in the Jordan, were all types and figures of the spiritual birth, and of the purification which was to take place thereby. Many passages in the Prophets too have a hidden reference to this birth: as that in the Psalms, Making you young and lusty as an eagle: and, Blessed is he whose unrighteousness is forgiven. And again, Isaac was a type of this birth. Referring to these passages, our Lord says, Are you a master in Israel, and know not these things? A second time however He condescends to his infirmity, and makes use of a common argument to render what He has said credible: Verily, verily, I say to you, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. Sight we consider the most certain of all the senses; so that when we say, we saw such a thing with our eyes, we seem to compel men to believe us. In like manner Christ, speaking after the manner of men, does not indeed say that he has seen actually, i.e. with the bodily eye, the mysteries He reveals; but it is clear that He means it of the most certain absolute knowledge. This then, viz. That we do know, he asserts of Himself alone.
Haymo: Quaeritur autem quare pluraliter dicat quod scimus loquimur. Ad quod dicendum, quod unigenitus Dei filius erat qui hoc loquebatur; ostendens qualiter pater est in filio, et filius in patre, et spiritus sanctus ab utroque indivisibilis procedat. HAYMO. Why, it is He asked, does He speak in the plural number, We speak that we do know? Because the speaker being the Only-Begotten Son of God, He would show that the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Ghost from both, proceeding indivisibly.
Alcuinus: Vel dicit pluraliter, ac si dicat: ego et illi qui modo spiritu sunt renati, intelligimus illud quod loquimur; et quod vidimus apud patrem in abscondito, hoc testamur foris in mundo; et vos, qui carnales estis et superbi, non accipitis testimonium nostrum. ALCUIN. Or, the plural number may have this meaning; I, and they who are born again of the Spirit, alone understand what we speak; and having seen the Father in secret, this we testify openly to the world; and you, who are carnal and proud, receive not our testimony.
Theophylactus: Quod nequaquam de Nicodemo dicit, sed de genere Iudaeorum, qui usque ad finem in perfidia permanserunt. THEOPHYL. This is not said of Nicodemus, but of tile Jewish race, who to the very last persisted in unbelief.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quod quidem non turbati verbum est, sed mansuetudinem ostendentis. Hinc enim erudit nos, cum ad aliquos locuti fuerimus et non persuaserimus, non tristari neque irasci, sed nostrum sermonem credibilem facere, non solum non irascendo, sed etiam non clamando; materia enim irae clamor est. Iesus autem dogmata excelsa tangere debens, propter audientium infirmitatem se detinet multoties; et non continue dignis sua magnitudine dogmatibus immoratur, sed magis his quae condescensionem habent; unde hic subditur si terrena dixi vobis, et non creditis, quomodo si dixero vobis caelestia, credetis? CHRYS. They are words of gentleness, not of anger; a lesson to us, when we argue and cannot converse, not by sore and angry words, but by the absence of anger and clamor, (for clamor is the material of anger,) to prove the soundness of our views. Jesus in entering upon high doctrines, ever checks Himself in compassion to the weakness of His hearer: and does not dwell continuously on the most important truths, but turns to others more humble. Whence it follows: If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things.
Augustinus: Hoc est, si non creditis quia templum possum suscitare deiectum a vobis, quomodo credetis quia per spiritum sanctum possunt homines regenerari? AUG. That is: If you do not believe that I can raise up a temple, which you have thrown down, how can you believe that men can be regenerated by the Holy Ghost?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Si Baptismum terrenum dicat, non mireris, quia in terra perficitur, et comparatione illius nativitatis stupendae quae est ex substantia patris, terrena est gratiae nativitas. Et bene non dixit: non intelligitis; sed non creditis: nam cum quis aliqua per intellectum suscipere non valet, amentiae vel ignorantiae imputatur; cum autem hoc non suscipiat aliquis quod solum fide oportet suscipere, non amentiae sed infidelitatis est accusatio. Dicebantur autem haec, etsi non credebantur, quia posteri erant ea suscepturi. CHRYS, Or thus: Be not surprised at His calling Baptism earthly. It is performed upon earth, and is compared with that stupendous birth, which is of the substance of the Father, an earthly birth being one of mere grace. And well has He said, not, You understand not, but, You believe not: for when the understanding cannot take in certain truths, we attribute it to natural deficiency or ignorance: but where that is not received which it belongs to faith only to receive, the fault is not deficiency, but unbelief. These truths, however, were revealed that posterity might believe and benefit by them, though the people of that age did not.

Lectio 4
13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
13. And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Augustinus de Peccat. Mer. et Remiss: Notata paululum eius imperitia qui se ceteris de magisterio praeferebat, et omnium talium incredulitate reprehensa, respondet quod alii credant, si illi non credunt ad illud quod interrogatus est quomodo possunt ista fieri? Dicens et nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis qui est in caelo; quasi dicat: sic fiet generatio spiritualis, ut sint caelestes homines ex terrenis; quod adipisci non poterunt nisi membra mea efficiantur, ut ipse ascendat qui descendit, non aliud deputans corpus suum, idest Ecclesiam suam, quam seipsum. AUG. After taking notice of this lack of knowledge in a person, who, on the strength of his magisterial station, set himself above others, and blaming the unbelief of such men, our Lord says, that if such as these do not believe, others will: No one has ascended into heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven. This may be rendered: The spiritual birth shall be of such sort, as that men from being earthly shall become heavenly: which will not be possible, except they are made members of Me; so that he who ascends, becomes one with Him who descended. Our Lord accounts His body, i.e. His Church, as Himself.
Gregorius Moralium: Quia enim nos unum cum illo iam facti sumus, unde solus venit in se, solus redit etiam in nobis; et is qui in caelo semper est, ad caelum quotidie ascendit. GREG. Forasmuch as we are made one with Him, to the place from which He came alone in Himself, thither He returns alone in us; and He who is ever in heaven, daily ascends to heaven.
Augustinus: Quamvis autem in terra factus sit filius hominis, divinitatem tamen suam, qua in caelo manens, descendit ad terram, non indignam censuit nomine filii hominis, sicut carnem suam dignatus est nomine filii Dei. Per unitatem enim personae, qua utraque substantia unus est Christus; et filius Dei ambulabat in terra, et idem ipse filius hominis manebat in caelo. Fit ergo credibiliorum fides ex incredibilioribus creditis. Si enim divina substantia longe distantior potuit propter nos ita suscipere humanam substantiam, ut una persona fieret; quanto credibilius alii sancti fiunt cum homine Christo unus Christus, ut omnibus per gratiam ascendentibus, ipse unus ascendat in caelum qui de caelo descendit? AUG. Although He was made the Son of man upon earth, yet His Divinity with which, remaining in heaven, He descended to earth, He has declared not to disagree with the title of Son of man, as He has thought His flesh worthy the name of Son of God. For through the Unity of person, by which both substances are one Christ, He walked upon earth, being Son of God; and remained in heaven, being Son of man. And the belief of the greater, involves belief in the less. If then the Divine substance, which is so far more removed from us, and could for our sake take up the substance of man so as to unite them in one person; how much more easily may we believe, that the Saints united with the man Christ, become with Him one Christ, so that while it is true of all, that they ascend by grace, it is at the same time true, that He alone ascends to heaven, Who came down from heaven.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Quia dixerat Nicodemus scimus quoniam a Deo venisti magister, ne aestimetur ita esse magister ut multi prophetarum de terra existentes, subiungit et nemo ascendit in caelum nisi qui descendit de caelo, filius hominis qui est in caelo. CHRYS. Or thus: Nicodemus having said, We know that You are a teacher sent from God; our Lord says, And no man has ascended, &c. in that He might not appear to be a teacher only like one of the Prophets.
Theophylactus: Cum vero filium hominis descendisse de caelo audis, non putes quod de caelo caro descenderit: hoc enim haereticorum dogma est, qui docebant, quod Christus de caelo corpus sumpserat, et per virginem transierat. THEOPHYL. But when you hear that the Son of man came down from heaven, think not that His flesh came down from heaven; for this is the doctrine of those heretics, who held that Christ took His Body from heaven, and only passed through the Virgin.
Chrysostomus: Filium enim hominis non carnem hic vocavit, sed a minori substantia se totum nominavit: est enim ei consuetudo multoties a divinitate, multoties ab humanitate totum vocare. CHRYS. By the title Son of man here, He does not mean His flesh, but Himself altogether; the lesser part of His nature being put to express the whole. It is not uncommon with Him to name Himself wholly from His humanity, or wholly from His divinity.
Beda: Si enim aliquis homo nudus de monte ad convallia descendat, et assumptis vestimentis et armis ad eumdem montem ascendat, recte ipse idem qui prius descendit ascendisse perhibetur. BEDE; If a man of set purpose descend naked to the valley, and there providing himself with clothes and armor, ascend the mountain again, he who ascended may be said to be the same with him who descended.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel quia de caelo descendit, conceptae de spiritu originis causa est: non enim corpori Maria originem dedit, licet ad incrementa partumque corporis omne quod sexus sui est naturale contulerit. Quod vero hominis filius est, susceptae in virgine carnis est partus. Quod autem in caelis est, naturae semper permanentis potestas est, quae non ex infinitatis suae virtute in regionem definiti corporis coarctavit verbi Dei potestatem, et in forma servi manens ab omni intra extraque caeli mundique circulo, caeli ac mundi dominus non abfuit. Per hoc ergo et de caelo descendit, quia filius hominis est; et in caelis est, quia verbum caro factum, non amiserat manere quod verbum est. HILARY; Or, His descending from heaven is the source of His origin as conceived by the Spirit: Mary gave not His body its origin, though the natural qualities of her sex contributed its birth and increase. That He is the Son of man is from the birth of the flesh which was conceived in the Virgin. That He is in heaven is form the power of His everlasting nature, which did not contract the power of the Word of God, which is infinite, within the sphere of a finite body. Our Lord remaining in the form of a servant, far from the whole circle, inner and outer, of heaven and the world, yet as Lord of heaven and the world, was not absent therefrom. So then He came down from heaven because He was the Son of man; and He was in heaven, because the Word, which was made flesh, had not ceased to be the Word.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Miraris autem quia hic erat, et in caelo. Tales fecit discipulos suos. Paulum audi dicentem: nostra conversatio in caelis est. Si homo Paulus ambulabat in terra et conversabatur in caelis, Deus caeli et terrae non poterat esse in caelo et in terra? AUG. But you wonder that He was at once here, and in heaven. Yet such power has He given to His disciples. Hear Paul, Our conversation is in heaven. If the man Paul walked upon earth, and had his conversation in heaven; shall not the God of heaven and earth be able to be in heaven and earth?
Chrysostomus: Vide autem, quia quod valde videtur excelsum, indignum est sua magnitudine: non enim solum in caelo est, sed ubique, et omnia replet. Sed adhuc ad imbecillitatem auditoris loquitur, paulatim eum reducere volens. CHRYS. That too which seems very lofty is still unworthy of His vastness. For He is not in heaven only, but every where, and fills all things. But for the present He accommodates Himself to the weakness of His hearer, that by degrees He may convert him.

Lectio 5
14 καὶ καθὼς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15. That whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia dixerat beneficium Baptismi, inducit huius causam, scilicet crucem, dicens et sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet filium hominis. CHRYS. Having made mention of the gift of baptism, He proceeds to the source of it, i.e. the cross: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.
Beda: Magistrum legis Mosaicae ad spiritualem sensum eiusdem legis inducit, recordans veteris historiae, et hanc in figuram suae passionis atque humanae salvationis factam edisserens. BEDE; He introduces the teacher of the Mosaic law, to the spiritual sense of that law; by a passage from the Old Testament history, which was intended to be a figure of His Passion, and of man’s salvation.
Augustinus de Peccat. Mer. et Remiss: Serpentum enim incursibus in deserto multi moriebantur; ac sic Moyses ex praecepto domini exaltavit in deserto aeneum serpentem: hunc videntes sanabantur continuo. Exaltatus serpens est mors Christi, eo significandi modo quo per efficientem id quod efficitur significatur. A serpente quippe mors venit, qui peccatum, quo mori meretur, homini persuasit; dominus autem in carnem suam non peccatum transtulit tamquam venenum serpentis, sed mortem, ut esset in similitudine carnis peccati poena sine culpa; unde in carne peccati et poena solveretur et culpa. AUG. Many dying in the wilderness from the attack of the serpents, Moses, by commandment of the Lord, lifted up a brazen serpent and those who looked upon it were immediately healed. The lifting up of the serpent is the death of Christ; the cause, by a certain mode of construction, being put for the effect. The serpent was the cause of death, inasmuch as he persuaded man into that sin, by which he merited death. Our Lord, however, did not transfer sin, i.e. the poison of the serpent, to his flesh, but death; in order that in the likeness of sinful flesh, there might be punishment without sin, by virtue of which sinful flesh might be delivered both from punishment and from sin.
Theophylactus: Videas ergo figuram ad veritatem: ibi enim serpentis similitudo speciem quidem bestiae habet, venenum autem non habet; sic et hic Christus a peccato liber, in similitudinem carnis peccati venit. Exaltari autem audiens, suspensionem intelligas in altum, ut sanctificaret aerem qui sanctificaverat terram ambulando in ea: intelligas etiam per exaltationem gloriam: nam illa crucis altitudo gloria Christi facta est: in quo enim iudicari voluit, in hoc huius mundi principem iudicavit. Adam enim iuste mortuus est, quia peccavit; dominus vero iniuste, quia peccatum non fecit. Postquam ergo iniuste mortem sustinuit, superavit illum qui eum tradidit morti, et sic liberavit Adam a morte. Sed in hoc devictum se invenit: non enim potuit in cruce dominum contristare ut crucifigentes odiret; sed magis diligebat, et pro eis orabat. Sic igitur crux Christi eius exaltatio et gloria facta est. THEOPHYL. See then the aptness of the figure. The figure of the serpent has the appearance of the beast, but not its poison: in the same way Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, being free from sin. By Christ’s being lifted up, understand His being suspended on high, by which suspension He sanctified the air, even as He had sanctified the earth by walking upon it. Herein too is typified the glory of Christ: for the height of the cross was made His glory for in that He submitted to be judged, He judged the prince of this world; for Adam died justly, because he sinned; out Lord unjustly, because He did no sin. So He overcame him, who delivered Him over to death, and thus delivered Adam from death. And in this the devil found himself vanquished, that he could not upon the cross torment our Lord into hating His murderers: but only made Him love and pray for them the more. In this way the cross of Christ was made His lifting up, and glory.
Chrysostomus: Ideo etiam non dixit: pendere oportet filium hominis, sed exaltari, quia honestius hoc videbatur: unde et propter audientem et propter figuram hoc posuit; ut discas quoniam cognata sunt vetera novis; deinde ut cognoscas quoniam non invitus ad passionem venit; et adhuc ut discas quoniam multis hinc nascitur salus. CHRYS. Wherefore He does not say, The Son of man must be suspended, but lifted up, a more honorable term, but coming near the figure. He uses the figure to show that the old dispensation is akin to the new, and to show on His hearers’ account that He suffered voluntarily; and that His death issued in life.
Augustinus: Sicut ergo tunc qui conspiciebat exaltatum serpentem, a veneno sanabatur, et a morte liberabatur; sic nunc qui conformatur similitudini mortis Christi per fidem Baptismumque eius, et a peccato per iustificationem, et a morte per resurrectionem liberatur; hoc est enim quod ait: ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Quid ergo opus est ut morti Christi per Baptismum conformetur parvulus, si morsu serpentis non est omnino venenatus? AUG. As then formerly he who looked to the serpent that was lifted up, was healed of its poison, and saved from death; so now he who is conformed to the likeness of Christ’s death by faith and the grace of baptism, is delivered both from sin by justification, and from death by the resurrection: as He Himself said; That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. What need then is there that the child should be conformed by baptism to the death of Christ, if he be not altogether tainted by the poisonous bite of the serpent?
Chrysostomus: Attende autem, quod passionem obumbrate posuit, ne ex eius verbis fieret tristis auditor; fructum vero passionis posuit manifeste. Si enim qui credunt in crucifixum, non pereunt; multo magis qui crucifixus est, non perit. CHRYS. Observe; He alludes to the Passion obscurely, in consideration to His hearer; but the fruit of the Passion He unfolds plainly; viz. that they who believe in the Crucified One should not perish. And if they who believe in the Crucified live, much more shall the Crucified One Himself.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Hoc autem interest inter figuratam imaginem et rem ipsam, quod illi sanabantur a morte ad temporalem vitam; hi autem, ut habeant vitam aeternam. AUG. But there is this difference between the figure and the reality, that the one recovered from temporal death, the other from eternal.

Lectio 6
16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 17 οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ' ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι' αὐτοῦ. 18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται: ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18. He that believes in him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia dixerat oportet exaltari filium hominis, quo mortem occulte significavit, ne auditor tristis ab his fieret verbis, humanum quid de eo suspicans, et mortem eius aestimans non esse salutarem; hoc ad rectitudinem reducit, filium Dei dicens eum qui datur ad mortem, et mortem eius causam esse vitae aeternae; unde dicit sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut filium suum unigenitum daret; ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam; quasi dicat: ne mireris quoniam ego debeo exaltari, ut vos salvemini: etenim et patri hoc videtur; qui ita nos dilexit, ut pro servis indevotis filium dederit. Dicendo autem sic Deus dilexit mundum, multam indicat amoris intensionem. Multa enim est et infinita distantia: qui enim immortalis, qui sine principio, qui magnitudo infinita, eos qui sunt ex terra et cinere, infinitis plenos peccatis dilexit. Sed et ea quae post hoc ponit, ostensiva sunt magni amoris: non enim servum, non Angelum, non Archangelum dedit, sed filium suum. Rursus, si filios plures habuisset et dedisset unum, hoc etiam esset maximum; nunc vero filium unicum dedit; unde subdit unigenitum. CHRYS. Having said, Even so must the Son of man be lifted up, alluding to His death; lest His hearer should be cast down by His words, forming some human notion of Him, and thinking of His death as an evil, He corrects this by saying, that He who was given up to death was the Son of God, and that His death would be the source of life eternal; So God loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; as if He said, Marvel not that I must be lifted up, that you may be saved: for so it seems good to the Father, who has so loved you, that He has given His Son to suffer for ungrateful and careless servants. The text, God so loved the world, shows intensity of love. For great indeed and infinite is the distance between the two. He who is without end, or beginning of existence, Infinite Greatness, loved those who were of earth and ashes, creatures laden with sins innumerable. And the act which springs from the love is equally indicative of its vastness. For God gave not a servant, or an Angel, or an Archangel, but His Son. Again, had He had many sons, and given one, this would have been a very great gift; but now He has given His Only Begotten Son.
Hilarius de Trin: Sed si dilectionis hinc fides est creaturam creaturae praestitisse, non facit magni meriti fidem vilis et spernenda iactura. Pretiosa autem sunt quae commendant caritatem, et ingentia ingentibus aestimantur. Deus diligens mundum, filium non adoptivum, sed suum et unigenitum dedit. Hic proprietas est, nativitas est, veritas est; non creatio est, non adoptio est, non falsitas est: hic dilectionis et caritatis fides est, ut ad mundi salutem et filium suum et unigenitum praestitisset. HILARY; If it were only a creature given up for the sake of a creature, such a poor and insignificant loss were no great evidence of love. They must be precious things which prove our love, great things must evidence its greatness. God, in love to the world, gave His Son, not an adopted Son, but His own, even His Only Begotten. Here is proper Sonship, birth, truth: no creation, no adoption, no lie: here is the test of love and charity, that God sent His own and only begotten Son to save the world.
Theophylactus: Videtur autem mihi quod, sicut dixit superius, quod filius hominis descendit de caelo, cum caro de caelo non descenderit; sed propter unam personam in Christo, quae Dei sunt attribuit homini: sed et nunc e converso, quae sunt hominis, verbo Dei appropriat: etenim Deus Dei filius impassibilis mansit; sed quia unus erat secundum hypostasim Dei filius et homo qui passionem sustinuit; filius dari dicitur in mortem, qui passibiliter patiebatur, non natura propria, sed carne propria. Est autem maxima utilitas consecuta ex huiusmodi datione, mentem excedens humanam; sequitur enim ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Vetus namque testamentum his qui servabant illud, dierum longitudinem promittebat; Evangelium vero aeternam et insolubilem vitam. THEOPHYL As He said above, that the Son of man came down from heaven, not meaning that His flesh did come down from heaven, on account of the unity of person in Christ, attributing to man what belonged to God: so now conversely what belongs to man, he assigns to God the Word. The Son of God was impassible; but being one in respect of person with man who was passable, the Son is said to be given up to death, inasmuch as He truly suffered, not in His own nature, but in His own flesh. From this death follows an exceeding great and incomprehensible benefit: viz. that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The Old Testament promised to those who obey obeyed it, length of days: the Gospel promises life eternal, and imperishable.
Augustinus: Notandum vero, quod eadem de filio Dei unigenito replicat quae de filio hominis in cruce exaltato praemiserat, dicens ut omnis qui credit in eum; quia idem redemptor et conditor noster filius Dei ante saecula existens, filius hominis factus est in fine saeculorum; ut qui per divinitatis suae potentiam nos creaverat ad perfruendam beatitudinem perennis vitae, ipse per fragilitatem humanitatis nostrae nos restauraret ad percipiendam quam perdidimus vitam. BEDE; Note here, that the same which he before said of the Son of man, lifted up on the cross, he repeats of the only begotten Son of God: viz. That whosoever believes in Him, &c. For the same our Maker and Redeemer, who was Son of God before the world was, was made at the end of the world the Son of man; so that He who by the power of His Godhead had created us to enjoy the happiness of an endless life, the same restored us to the life we have lost by taking our human frailty upon Him.
Alcuinus: Vere autem per filium Dei habebit mundus vitam; quia non alia de causa venit in mundum nisi ut salvet mundum; unde sequitur non enim misit Deus filium suum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. ALCUIN. Truly through the Son of God shall the world have life; for no other cause came He into the world, except to save the world. God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quare enim salvator mundi dictus est, nisi ut salvet mundum? Ergo quantum in medico est, sanare venit aegrotum. Ipse se interimit qui praecepta medici servare non vult, aut contemnit. AUG. For why is He called the Savior of the world, but because He saves the world? The physician, so far as his will is concerned, heals the sick. If the sick despises or will not observe the directions of the physician, he destroys himself.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed quia hoc dicit, multi pigrorum in peccatorum magnitudine, et negligentiae superabundantia, Dei abutentes misericordia, dicunt: non est Gehenna, non est supplicium; omnia nobis Deus peccata dimittit. Sed considerandum, quod duo sunt Christi adventus: qui iam factus est, et qui futurus. Et prior quidem factus est, non ut iudicet quae facta sunt a nobis, sed ut dimittat. Secundus autem, non ut dimittat, sed ut iudicet. De priori igitur ait: non veni ut iudicem mundum; quia enim clemens est, non facit iudicium, sed interim remissionem omnium peccatorum per Baptismum primo, et postea per poenitentiam; quia si hoc modo non fecisset, universi simul perditi essent: omnes enim peccaverunt et egent gratia Dei. Ne igitur aliquis crederet se impune peccare, subdit de poena non credentis qui credit in eum, non iudicatur. Qui credit, inquit, non qui investigat. Quid igitur si immundam habeat vitam? Maxime quidem Paulus tales non fideles esse dicit: confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant. Sed hoc illud significat: quia secundum hoc qui credit, non iudicatur; sed operum quidem graviorem sustinebit poenam; infidelitatis autem causa non torquebitur. CHRYS. Because however He says this, slothful men in the multitude of their sins, and excess of carelessness, abuse God’s mercy, and say, There is no hell, no punishment; God remits us all our sins. But let us remember, that there are two advents of Christ; one past, the other to come. The former was, not to judge but to pardon us: the latter will be, not to pardon but to judge us. It is of the former that He says, I have not come to judge the world. Because He is merciful, instead of judgment, He grants an internal remission of all sins by baptism; and even after baptism opens to us the door of repentance, which had He not done all had been lost; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Afterwards, however, there follows something about the punishment of unbelievers, to warn us against flattering ourselves that we can sin with impunity. Of the unbeliever He says, ‘he is judged already.’ - But first He says, He that believes in Him is not judged. He who believes, He says, not who inquires. But what if his life be impure? Paul very strongly declares that such are not believers: They confess, he says, that they know God, but in works deny Him. That is to say, Such will not be judged for their belief, but will receive a heavy punishment for their works, though unbelief will not be charged against them.
Alcuinus: Vel qui credit in eum et adhaeret ei ut membrum capiti, non iudicabitur. ALCUIN. He who believes in Him, and cleaves to Him as a member to the head, will not be condemned.
Augustinus: Quid autem dicturum sperabas de eo qui non credit, nisi quod iudicatur? Sed vide quid dicit: qui autem non credit, iam iudicatus est. Nondum apparuit iudicium, sed iam factum est iudicium. Novit enim dominus qui sunt eius; novit qui permaneant ad coronam et qui permaneant ad flammam. AUG. What did you expect Him to say of him who believed not, except that he is condemned. Yet mark His words: He that believes not is condemned already. The Judgment has not appeared, but it is already given. For the Lord knows who are His; who are awaiting the crown, and who the fire.
Chrysostomus: Aut hoc dicit, quia ipsum discredere impoenitentis supplicium est: esse enim extra lumen, etiam secundum se, maximum supplicium est. Vel quod futurum est praenuntiat. Sicut enim qui occidit hominem, etsi nondum sententia iudicantis condemnatus sit, rei tamen natura condemnatus est; ita et qui incredulus est; sicut et Adam qua die comedit de ligno, mortuus est. CHRYS. Or the meaning is, that disbelief itself is the punishment of the impenitent: inasmuch as that is to be without light, and to be without light is of itself the greatest punishment. Or He is announcing what is to be. Though a murderer be not yet sentenced by the Judge, still his crime has already condemned him. In like manner he who believes not, is dead, even as Adam, on the day that he ate of the tree, died.
Gregorius Moralium: Vel aliter. In extremo iudicio aliqui non iudicantur et pereunt, de quibus hic dicitur qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. Non enim eorum tunc causa discutitur qui a conspectu districti iudicis iam cum damnatione suae infidelitatis abscedunt. Professionem vero fidei retinentes, sed professionis opera non habentes, redarguuntur ut pereant. Qui vero nec fidei sacramenta tenuerunt, increpationem iudicis in extrema examinatione non audiunt: quia praeiudicati in infidelitatis suae tenebris, eius quem despexerant invectione argui non merentur. Princeps namque terrenam rempublicam regens aliter punit civem interius delinquentem, atque aliter hostem exterius rebellantem. In isto iura sua consulit; contra hostem vero bella movet, dignaque eius malitiae tormenta retribuit; de malo vero eius quid lex habeat non requirit; neque enim lege necesse est perimi eum qui lege numquam potuit teneri. GREG. Or thus: In the last judgment some perish without being judged, of whom it is here said, He that believes not is condemned already. For the day of judgment does not try those who for unbelief are already banished from the sight of a discerning judge, are under sentence of damnation; but those, who retaining the profession of faith, have no works to show suitable to that profession. For those who have not kept even the sacraments of faith, do not even hear the curse of the Judge at the last trial. They have already, in the darkness of their unbelief, received their sentence, and are not thought worthy of being convicted by the rebuke of Him whom they had despised Again; For an earthly sovereign, in the government of his state, has a different rule of punishment, in the case of the disaffected subject, and the foreign rebel. In the former case he consults the civil law; but against the enemy he proceeds at once to war, and repays his malice with the punishment it deserves, without regard to law, inasmuch as he who never submitted to law, has no claim to suffer by the law.
Alcuinus: Quare autem iudicatus est qui non credit, causam assignat dicens quia non credit in nomine unigeniti filii Dei. In hoc enim solo nomine est salus. Non habet Deus multos filios qui possint salvare; hunc habet unigenitum, per quem salvat. ALCUIN. He then gives the reason why he who believes not is condemned, viz. because he believes not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. For in this name alone is there salvation. God has not many sons who can save; He by whom He saves is the Only Begotten.
Augustinus de Peccat. Mer. et Remiss: Ubi ergo parvulos ponimus baptizatos, nisi inter eos qui crediderunt? Hoc enim eis acquiritur per virtutem sacramenti et offerentium responsionem; ac per hoc eos qui baptizati non sunt, inter eos qui non crediderunt, statuimus. AUG. Where then do we place baptized children? Amongst those who believe? This is acquired for them by the virtue of the Sacrament, and the pledges of the sponsors. And by this same rule we reckon those who are not baptized, among those who believe not.

Lectio 7
19 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς, ἦν γὰρ αὐτῶν πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα. 20 πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ: 21 ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.
19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Alcuinus: Reddit causam quare non crediderunt, et quare iuste damnantur, dicens hoc est autem iudicium, quia lux venit in mundum. ALCUIN. Here is the reason why men believed not, and why they are justly condemned; This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quasi dicat: numquid ipsi eam quaesierunt vel laboraverunt ut invenirent? Ipsa lux venit ad eos, nec ei occurrerunt; unde sequitur et dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem. Hic de reliquo omni eos privat excusatione: venit enim eripere a tenebris, et ad lucem ducere. Quis ergo eius qui non vult ad lucem accedere, miserebitur? CHRYS. As if He said, So far from their having sought for it, or labored to find it, light itself has come to them, and they have refused to admit it; Men loved darkness rather than light, Thus He leaves them no excuse. He came to rescue them from darkness, and bring them to light; who can pity him who does not choose to approach the light when it comes unto him?
Beda: Lucem seipsum appellat, de qua Evangelista dixit: erat lux vera. Tenebras vero appellat peccata.

Deinde, quia videbatur multis esse incredibile quod dictum est (nullus enim tenebras praehonorat luci), subdit causam quare haec passi sunt, dicens erant enim eorum opera mala. Et si quidem in iudicium venisset, haberet hoc aliquam rationem; qui enim malorum sibi conscius est, fugere iudicem consuevit; parcenti vero, qui dereliquerunt occurrunt. Decens igitur erat eos qui multorum sibi ipsis erant conscii peccatorum, maxime Christo ad ignoscendum venienti occurrere; quod et in multis factum est; etenim publicani et peccatores venientes recumbebant cum Iesu. Quia vero quidam sunt ita molles ad eos qui pro virtute sunt labores, ut usque ad ultimum velint adhaerere malitiae; in horum iniuriam subdit omnis enim qui male agit, odit lucem: quod quidem dictum est de his qui eligunt in malitia manere.

BEDE; He calls Himself the light, whereof the Evangelist speaks, That was the true light; whereas sin He calls darkness.

CHRYS. Then because it seemed incredible that man should prefer light to darkness, he gives the reason of the infatuation, viz. that their deeds were evil. And indeed had He come to Judgment, there had been some reason for not receiving Him; for he who is conscious of his crimes, naturally avoids the judge. But criminals are glad to meet one who brings them pardon. And therefore it might have been expected that men conscious of their sins would have gone to meet Christ, as many indeed did; for the publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus. But the greater part being too cowardly to undergo the toils of virtue for righteousness’ sake, persisted in their wickedness to the last; of whom our Lord says, Every one that does evil, hates the light. He speaks of those who choose to remain in their wickedness.

Alcuinus: Quia omnis qui male agit, odit lucem; idest, qui est in intentione peccandi, cui placet peccatum, odit lucem, quae detegit peccatum. ALCUIN. Every one that does evil, hates the light; i.e. he who is resolved to sin, who delights in sin, hates the light, which detects his sin.
Augustinus Confess: Quia enim falli nolunt et fallere volunt, amant eam cum seipsam indicat, et oderunt eam cum eos ipsa lux indicat. Inde retribuetur eis, ut eos nolentes manifestet, et eis ipsa non sit manifesta. Amant ergo veritatem lucentem, oderunt eam redarguentem; unde sequitur et non venit ad lucem, ut non arguantur opera eius. AUG. Because they dislike being deceived, and like to deceive, they love light for discovering herself, and hate her for discovering them. Wherefore it shall be their punishment, that she shall manifest them against their will, and herself not be manifest unto them. They love the brightness of truth, they hate her discrimination; and therefore it follows, Neither comes to the light, that his deeds should be reproved.
Chrysostomus: Eum enim qui in Paganismo vivit, nullus redarguit, quia deos tales habet, et digna dogmatibus opera demonstrat; qui vero Christi sunt male viventes ab omnibus rectis accusantur. Si autem gentiles sunt recte viventes, hoc manifeste non novi. Non enim mihi dicas eos qui a natura sunt mites et honesti; non enim est hoc virtus; sed eum dic qui a passionibus sustinet violentiam, et sapienter vivit; sed non utique habes. Si enim regni enuntiatio, et Gehennae minae, et alia tanta documenta vix detinent homines in virtute, nullo horum persuasi pertransibunt virtutem. Si vero hypocrisim fingunt, gloriae gratia hoc faciunt: unde cum potuerint latere, non omittent uti malis desideriis. Quae etiam utilitas est cum aliquis sobrius sit et non rapit, fit vero vanae gloriae servus? Hoc enim non est recte vivere. Inanis enim gloriae servus fornicario non minor est: multo enim plura et graviora operatur. Si autem quidam recte sunt viventes in gentilibus, non hoc adversatur huic sermoni: quia non frequenter contingit, sed raro. CHRYS. No one reproves a Pagan, because his own practice agrees with the character of his gods; his life is in accordance with his doctrines. But a Christian who lives in wickedness all must condemn. If there are any Gentiles whose life is good, I know them not. But are there not Gentiles? it may be asked. For do not tell me of the naturally amiable and honest; this is not virtue. But show me one who has strong passions, and lives with wisdom. You cannot. For if the announcement of a kingdom, and the threats of hell, and other inducements, hardly keep men virtuous which they are so, such calls will hardly rouse them to the attainment of virtue in the first instance. Pagans, if they do produce any thing which looks well, do it for vain-glory’s sake, and will therefore at the same time, if they can escape notice, gratify their evil desires as well. And what profit is a man’s sobriety and decency of conduct, if he is the slave of vain-glory? The slave of vain-glory is no less a sinner than a fornicator; nay, sins even oftener, and more grievously. However, even supposing there are some few Gentiles of good lives, the exceptions so rare do not affect my argument.
Beda: Moraliter etiam illi magis tenebras quam lucem diligunt, qui suos praedicatores bene docentes odiis et detractionibus insequuntur. Sequitur qui autem facit veritatem, venit ad lucem, ut manifestentur opera eius, quia in Deo sunt facta. BEDE; Morally too they love darkness rather than light, who when their preachers tell them their duty, assail them with calumny. But he that does truth comets to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Chrysostomus: Non autem de his qui ab initio facti sunt Christiani hoc dicit; sed tantum de his qui ex gentibus vel Iudaeis ad rectam transponendi erant fidem. Ostendit enim quoniam nullus utique eliget in errore vivens ad fidem venire, nisi prius inscribat sibi ipsi viam rectam. CHRYS. He does not say this of those who are brought up under the Gospel, but of those who are converted to the true faith from Paganism or Judaism. He shows that no one will leave a false religion for the true faith, till he first resolve to follow a right course of life.
Augustinus de Peccat. Mer. et Remiss: In Deo autem facta dicit opera eius qui venit ad lucem: quia intelligit iustificationem suam non ad sua merita, sed ad Dei gratiam pertinere. AUG. He calls the works of him who comes to the light, wrought in God; meaning that his justification is attributable not to his own merits) but to God’s grace.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sed si omnia opera Deus mala invenit, quomodo quidam fecerunt veritatem, et venerunt ad lucem, idest ad Christum? Sed dilexerunt tenebras magis quam lucem: ibi posuit vim. Multi dilexerunt peccata sua, multi ea confessi sunt. Accusat Deus peccata tua: si et tu accuses, adiungeris Deo. Oportet ut oderis in te opus tuum, et ames in te opus Dei. Initium operum bonorum confessio est operum malorum: et tunc facis veritatem, quia non te palpas, non tibi blandiris. Venis autem ad lucem, quia hoc ipsum quod tibi displicuit peccatum tuum, non tibi displiceret nisi Deus tibi luceret, et eius veritas tibi ostenderet. Facit autem aliquis veritatem confessionis, et venit ad lucem in operibus bonis, etiam propter illa quae videntur minuta esse peccata linguae aut cogitationum, aut immorationis in rebus concessis; quoniam minuta plura peccata, si negligantur, occidunt. Minutae sunt guttae quae flumen implent; minuta sunt grana arenae; sed si multa arena imponatur, arena premit atque opprimit. Hoc facit sentina neglecta, quod facit fluctus irruens paulatim. Per sentinam intrat; sed diu intrando et non exhauriendo mergit navem. Quid est autem exhaurire, nisi bonis operibus agere ne obruant peccata, gemendo, ieiunando, tribuendo, ignoscendo? AUG. But if God has discovered all men’s works to be evil, how is it that any have done the truth, and come to the light, i.e. to Christ? Now what He said is, that they loved darkness rather than light; He lays the stress upon that. Many have loved their sins, many have confessed them. God accuses your sins; if you accuse them too, you are joined to God. You must hate your own work, and love the work of God in you. The beginning of good works, is the confession of evil works, and then you does the truth: not soothing, not flattering yourself. And you are come to the light, because this very sin in you, which displeases you, would not displease you, did not God shine upon you, and His truth show it to you. And let those even who have sinned only by word or thought, or who have only exceeded in things allowable, do the truth, by making confession, and come to the light by performing good works. For little sins, if suffered to accumulate, become mortal. Little drops swell the river: little grains of sand become an heap, which presses and weighs down. The sea coming in by little and little, unless it be pumped out, sinks the vessel. And what is to pump out, but by good works, mourning, fasting, giving and forgiving, to provide against our sins overwhelming us?

Lectio 8
22 μετὰ ταῦτα ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, καὶ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν μετ' αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν. 23 ἦν δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων ἐν αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ, ὅτι ὕδατα πολλὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ, καὶ παρεγίνοντο καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο: 24 οὔπω γὰρ ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν ὁ Ἰωάννης. 25 ἐγένετο οὖν ζήτησις ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν Ἰωάννου μετὰ Ἰουδαίου περὶ καθαρισμοῦ. 26 καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, ῥαββί, ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ πέραν τοῦ ἰορδάνου, ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, ἴδε οὗτος βαπτίζει καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν.
22. After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. 23. And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. 24. For John was not yet cast into prison. 25. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. 26. And they came to John, and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bare witness, behold, the same baptizes, and all men come to him.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Nihil veritate apertius neque fortius; quae neque latere vult, neque periculum formidat, neque insidiis tremit, neque gloriam quae a multis est desiderat, nulli humanorum obnoxia; unde et dominus in solemnitatibus Ierusalem ascendebat; non se ostentans, neque honorem diligens, sed ut pluribus sua dogmata proponeret, et miraculorum utilitatem. Postquam autem solemnitates solvebantur, ad Iordanem frequenter veniebat, quia et illic etiam turbae concurrebant; unde dicitur post haec venit Iesus et discipuli eius in Iudaeam terram, et illic demorabatur cum eis. CHRYS. Nothing is more open than truth, nothing bolder; it neither seeks concealment, or avoids danger, or fears the snare, or cares for popularity. It is subject to no human weakness. Our Lord went up to Jerusalem at the feasts, not from ostentation or love of honor, but to teach the people His doctrines, and show miracles of mercy. After the festival He visited the crowds who were collected at the Jordan. After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
Beda: Dicit autem post haec, non continuo post disputationem cum Nicodemo, quae facta est in Hierosolymis, sed peracto spatio temporis de Galilaea in Iudaeam rediit. BEDE; After these things, is not immediately after His dispute with Nicodemus, which took place at Jerusalem; but on His return to Jerusalem after some. time spent in Galilee.
Alcuinus: Per Iudaeam quidem significantur confitentes, quos visitat Christus: ubi enim est peccatorum confessio vel divinarum laudum, illuc venit Christus et discipuli eius, idest doctrina et illuminatio eius, et ibi moratur purgando a vitiis; unde sequitur et illic demorabatur cum eis, et baptizabat. ALCUIN. By Judea are meant those who confess, whom Christ visits; for wherever there is confession of sins, or the praise of God, thither comes Christ and His disciples, i. e. His doctrine and enlightenment; and there He is known by His cleansing men from sin: And there He tarried with them, and baptized.
Chrysostomus: Cum autem Evangelista postmodum dicat quod Iesus non baptizabat, sed discipuli eius, manifestum est quoniam et hic hoc dicit, quod soli discipuli baptizabant. CHRYS. As the Evangelist says afterwards, that Jesus baptized not but His disciples, it is evident that he means the same here, i.e. that the disciples only baptized.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Baptizatus autem dominus baptizabat non eo Baptismate quo baptizatus est: baptizatus est enim a servo, ostendens humilitatis viam, et perducens ad Baptismum domini, hoc est suum. Baptizabat enim Iesus quomodo dominus, quomodo Dei filius. AUG. Our Lord did not baptize with the baptism wherewith He had been baptized; for He was baptized by a servant, as a lesson of humility to us, and in order to bring us to the Lord’s baptism, i.e. His own; for Jesus baptized, as the Lord, the Son of God.
Beda: Christo autem iam baptizante, adhuc baptizat Ioannes; quia adhuc permanet umbra, nec debet praecursor cessare donec veritas manifestetur; unde sequitur erat autem Ioannes baptizans in Aennon iuxta Salim. Aennon Hebraice aqua: unde quasi nominis interpretationem aperiens subdit quia aquae multae erant illic. Salim oppidum est iuxta Iordanem situm, ubi olim Melchisedech regnavit. BEDE; John still continues baptizing, though Christ has begun; for the shadow remains still, nor must the forerunner cease, till the truth is manifested. And John also was baptizing in Ænon, near to Salim. Ænon is Hebrew for water; so that the Evangelist gives, as it were, the derivation of the name, when he adds, For there was much water there. Salim is a town on the Jordan, where Melchisedec once reigned.
Hieronymus ad Evagrium: Nec refert utrum Salem aut Salim nominetur, cum vocalibus in medio litteris perraro utantur Hebraei, et pro voluntate lectorum ac regionum varietate, eadem verba diversis sonis atque accentibus proferantur. Sequitur et veniebant, et baptizabantur. JEROME; It matters not whether it is called Salem, or Salim; since the Jews very rarely use vowels in the middle of words; and the same words are pronounced with different vowels and accents, by different readers, and in different places. And they came, and were baptized.
Beda: Quantum catechumenis nondum baptizatis prodest doctrina fidei, tantum profuit Baptisma Ioannis ante Baptismum Christi: quia sicut ille praedicabat poenitentiam et Baptismum Christi nuntiabat, et in cognitionem veritatis quae mundo apparuit attrahebat: sic ministri Ecclesiae primo erudiunt venientes ad fidem, post peccata eorum redarguunt, deinde in Baptismo Christi remissionem promittunt, et sic in cognitionem et dilectionem veritatis attrahunt. BEDE; The same kind of benefit which catechumens receive from instruction before they are baptized, the same did John’s baptism convey before Christ’s. As John preached repentance, announced Christ’s baptism, and drew all men to the knowledge of the truth now made manifest to the world: so the ministers of the Church first instruct those who come to the faith, then reprove their sins; and lastly, drawing them to the knowledge and love of the truth, offer them remission by Christ’s baptism.
Chrysostomus: Discipulis autem Iesu baptizantibus, non cessavit Ioannes baptizans usque ad incarcerationem; quod significat Evangelista cum subdit nondum enim missus fuerat Ioannes in carcerem. CHRYS. Notwithstanding the disciples of Jesus baptized, John did not leave off till his imprisonment; as the Evangelist’s language intimates, For John was not yet cast into prison.
Beda: Ecce aperte notat facta Christi ante Ioannem incarceratum; quae alii praeterierunt, incipientes ab his quae post missum Ioannem in carcerem facta sunt. BEDE; He evidently here is relating what Christ did before John’s imprisonment; a part which has been passed over by the rest, who commence after John’s imprisonment.
Augustinus: Quare autem baptizabat Ioannes? Quia oportebat ut dominus baptizaretur. Non solum autem baptizatus est ab eo, ne Baptismus Ioannis melior Baptismate domini videretur. AUG. But why did John baptize? Because it was necessary that our Lord should be baptized. And why was it necessary that our Lord should be baptized? That no one might ever think himself at liberty to despise baptism.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sed cuius gratia usque tunc baptizabat? Si enim cessasset, aestimaretur zelo vel ira facere; sed persistens, non sibi ipsi gloriam acquirebat, sed Christo auditores mittebat. Et multo efficacius hoc faciebat quam discipuli Christi, quia insuspicabile eius erat testimonium, et maiorem gloriam apud omnes habebat; ideo etiam adhuc baptizabat, ne discipulos suos in ampliorem zelum immitteret. Aestimo autem et propter hoc permissam esse mortem Ioannis, et eo sublato de medio, Iesum maxime praedicare coepisse, ut omnis multitudinis affectio ad Christum transiret, et non ultra his quae de utroque erant sententiis scinderetur. Zelotype enim se habentes discipuli Ioannis ad Christi discipulos et ad ipsum Christum, quia viderunt discipulos Christi baptizantes, coeperunt dicere ad eos qui baptizabantur, quasi aliquid maius haberet Baptisma Ioannis Baptismate discipulorum Christi; unde subditur facta est ergo quaestio ex discipulis Ioannis cum Iudaeis de purificatione. Quoniam enim ipsi quaestionem moverunt, sed non Iudaei, Evangelista occulte monstrat, non dicens quod Iudaeus quaesivit, sed quod quaestio facta est ex discipulis Ioannis. CHRYS, But why did he go on baptizing now? Because, had he left off, it might have been attributed to envy or anger: whereas, continuing to baptize, he got no glory for himself, but sent hearers to Christ. And he was better able to do this service, than were Christ’s own disciples; his testimony being so free from suspicion, and his reputation with the people so much higher than theirs. He therefore continued to baptize, that he might not increase the envy felt by his disciples against our Lord’s baptism. Indeed, the reason, I think, why John’s death was permitted, and, in his room, Christ made the great preacher, was, that the people might transfer their affections wholly to Christ, and no longer be divided between the two. For the disciples of John did become so envious of Christ’s disciples, and even of Christ Himself, that when they saw the latter baptizing, they threw contempt upon their baptism, as being inferior to that of John’s; And there arose a question from some of John’s disciples with the Jews about purifying. That it was they who began the dispute, and not the Jews, the Evangelist implies by saying, that there arose a question from John’s disciples, whereas he might have said, The Jews put forth a question.
Augustinus: Intelligas ergo dixisse Iudaeos maiorem esse Christum, et ad eius Baptisma debere concurri; illi autem nondum intelligentes defendebant Baptismum Ioannis. Ventum est ergo ad ipsum Ioannem, ut solveret quaestionem; unde sequitur et venerunt ad Ioannem, et dixerunt ei: Rabbi, qui erat tecum trans Iordanem (...) ecce baptizat. AUG. The Jews then asserted Christ to be the greater person, and His baptism necessary to be received. But John’s disciples did not understand so much, and defended John’s baptism. At last they come to John, to solve the question: And they came unto John, and said to him, Rabbi, He that was with you beyond Jordan, behold, the Same baptizes.
Chrysostomus: Hoc est: quem tu baptizasti. Non autem dixerunt: quem tu baptizasti: quia coacti essent et vocis eius meminisse quae super eum est delata; sed dicunt qui erat tecum, quasi qui discipuli ordinem habebat, nihil plus habens nobis, nunc se a te separans baptizat. Addunt autem cui etiam testimonium perhibuisti; quasi dicant: quem tu clarum ostendisti, et circumspectum fecisti, eadem tibi audet: et hoc est quod dicunt ecce hic baptizat. Non autem in hoc solum aestimabant se excitare eum, sed et in eo quod de reliquo ea quae ipsorum erant reprobabantur; unde subdunt et omnes veniunt ad eum. CHRYS. Meaning, He, Whom you baptized, baptizes. They did not say expressly, Whom you baptized, for they did not wish to be reminded of the voice from heaven, but, He Who was with you, i.e. Who was in the situation of a disciple, who was nothing more than any of us, He now separates Himself from you, and baptizes. They add, To Whom you bare witness; as if to say, Whom you showed to the world, Whom you made renowned, He now dares to do as you do. Behold, the Same baptizes. And in addition to this, they urge the probability that John’s doctrines would fall into discredit. All men come to Him.
Alcuinus: Quasi dicant: te dimisso omnes currunt ad Baptismum illius quem tu baptizasti. ALCUIN. Meaning, Passing by you, all men run to the baptism of Him Whom you baptized.

Lectio 9
27 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν, οὐ δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲ ἓν ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ δεδομένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 28 αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μοι μαρτυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον [ὅτι] οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός, ἀλλ' ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος εἰμὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. 29 ὁ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην νυμφίος ἐστίν: ὁ δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυμφίου, ὁ ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, χαρᾷ χαίρει διὰ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ νυμφίου. αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. 30 ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. 28. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. 29. He that has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. 30. He must increase, but I must decrease.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Interrogatus Ioannes, non vehementer discipulos increpat, timens ne ab eo separati, aliquid aliud operentur; sed remisse quodammodo eis loquitur; unde dicitur respondit Ioannes, et dixit eis: non potest homo accipere quidquam, nisi fuerit ei datum de caelo: quasi dicat: etsi praeclara sunt quae Christi sunt, etsi omnes ad eum currunt, mirari non oportet: Deus enim est qui hoc facit. Humana enim facile deprehensibilia sunt, et imbecillia, et velociter defluunt; haec autem non talia sunt: non ergo sunt humanitus adinventa, sed divinitus ordinata. Si autem humilius loquitur de Christo, non mireris: non enim erat conveniens quod praeassumptos a tali passione, scilicet invidiae, ab initio doceret omnia; sed interim vult eos terrere, ostendens quod ad impossibilia conantur, et quod Deo rebelles inveniuntur. CHRYS. John, on this question being raised, does not rebuke his disciples, for fear they might separate, and turn to some other school, but replies gently, John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven; as if he said, No wonder that Christ does such excellent works, and that all men come to Him; when He Who does it all is God. Human efforts are easily seen through, are feeble, and short-lived. These are not such: they are not therefore of human, but of divine originating. He seems however to speak somewhat humbly of Christ, which will not surprise us, when we consider that it was not fitting to tell the whole truth, to minds prepossessed with such a passion as envy. He only tries for the present to alarm them, by showing that they are attempting impossible things, and fighting against God.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Hoc Ioannes de seipso dicit: quasi homo de caelo accepi: ergo quia accepi ut aliquid essem, inanem me vultis esse, ut loquar contra veritatem? AUG. Or perhaps John is speaking here of himself: I am a mere man, and have received all from heaven, and therefore think not that, because it has been given me to be somewhat, I am so foolish as to spear: against the truth.
Chrysostomus: Et vide quia hoc quod aestimabant proponi in Christi subversione, quando dixerunt cui testimonium perhibuisti, hoc in eos convertit, dicens ipsi vos mihi testimonium perhibetis, quod dixerim: non sum ego Christus; quasi dicat: si verum meum testimonium aestimatis, dicite quoniam illum mihi praehonorare oportet; unde subdit sed quoniam missus sum ante illum; quasi dicat: minister sum, et ea quae sunt eius qui me misit dico, non humana gratia blandiens ei, sed patri eius qui me misit, ministrans. CHRYS. And see; the very argument by which they thought to have overthrown Christ, To whom you bare witness, he turns against them; You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ; as if he said, If you think my witness true, you must acknowledge Him more worthy of honor shall myself. He adds, But that I was sent before Him; that is to say, I am a servant, and perform the commission of the Father which sent me; my witness is not from favor or partiality; I say that which was given me to say.
Alcuinus: Sed si aliquis dicat: quandoquidem tu non es Christus, quis ergo es tu? Vel: quis est ille cui perhibes testimonium? Ad hoc respondet: ille est sponsus; ego sum amicus sponsi, missus ut per me sponsa praeparetur suo sponso; unde subditur qui habet sponsam, sponsus est. Sponsam dicit Ecclesiam ex omnibus gentibus congregatam, quae virgo est integritate mentis, perfectione caritatis, unitate Catholicae fidei, concordia pacis, integritate animae et corporis; quae habet sponsum, de quo quotidie generat. BEDE; Who are you then, since you are not the Christ, and who is He to Whom you bear witness? John replies, He is the Bridegroom; I am the friend of the Bridegroom, sent to prepare the Bride for His approach: He that has the Bride, is the Bridegroom. By the Bride he means the Church, gathered from amongst all nations; a Virgin in purity of heart, in perfection of love, in the bond of peace, in chastity of mind and body; in the unity of the Catholic faith; [the Church has Christ as its spouse, from whom it bears children every day.]
Beda: Ceterum frustra est virgo corpore quae virgo non manet in mente. Hanc autem sponsam Christus in thalamo uteri virginalis sibi sociavit, et eamdem pretio sui sanguinis redemit. for in vain is she a virgin in body, who continues not a virgin in mind. This Bride has Christ joined to Himself in marriage, and redeemed with the price of His own Blood.
Theophylactus: Omnis etiam animae sponsus Christus est; sponsalium vero locus, ubi coniunctio efficitur, locus est Baptismatis, sive Ecclesia. Dat vero arrham sponsae, peccatorum remissionem, spiritus sancti communionem; perfectiora vero in futuro saeculo retribuet dignis. Nullus autem alius est sponsus nisi solus Christus: omnes namque doctores paranymphi existunt, sicut et praecursor. Nullus enim bonorum largitor est nisi dominus: omnes alii ministri sunt bonorum, quae dantur a domino. THEOPHYL. Christ is the spouse of every soul; the wedlock, wherein they are joined, is baptism; the place of that wedlock is the Church; the pledge of it, remission of sins, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost; the consummation, eternal life; which those who are worthy shall receive. Christ alone is the Bridegroom: all other teachers are but the friends of the Bridegroom, as was the forerunner. The Lord is the giver of good; the rest are the despisers of His gifts.
Beda: Sponsam igitur suam dominus amico suo, idest ordini praedicatorum, commendavit; qui eam non sibi, sed Christo zelare debet; unde subditur amicus autem sponsi, qui stat et audit eum, gaudio gaudet propter vocem sponsi. BEDE; His Bride therefore our Lord committed to His friend, i.e. the order of preachers, who should be jealous of her, not for themselves, but for Christ; The friend of the Bridegroom which stands and hears Him, rejoices greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice.
Augustinus: Quasi dicat: non est mea sponsa. Sed numquid non gaudes in nuptiis? Immo gaudeo, ait, quia sum amicus sponsi. AUG. As if He said, She is not My spouse. But do you therefore not rejoice in the marriage? Yes, I rejoice, he said, because I am the friend of the Bridegroom.
Chrysostomus: Sed qualiter qui dixit: non sum dignus solvere corrigiam calceamenti, amicum nunc seipsum dicit? Non quidem propter honoris aequalitatem, sed multitudinem gaudii repraesentare volens. Non enim in talibus ita ministri sponsi laetantur sicut amici. Simul autem et condescendens eorum imbecillitati amicum se dicit: quia enim aestimabant eum morderi ab his quae fiebant, ostendit quod non solum non mordetur, sed et valde gaudet, si sponsum sponsa cognoscit. CHRYS. But how does he who said above, Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose, call himself a friend? As an expression not of equality, but of excess of joy: (for the friend of the Bridegroom is always more rejoiced than the servant,) and also, as a condescension to the weakness of his disciples, who thought that he was pained at Christ’s ascendancy. For he hereby assures them, that so far from being pained, he was right glad that the Bride recognized her Spouse.
Augustinus: Sed quare stat? Quia non cadit, quia humilis est. Vide stantem in solido. Non sum dignus corrigiam calceamenti ei solvere. Stat autem, et audit eum. Si ergo cadit, non audit eum: ergo stare debet amicus sponsi et audire, idest permanere in gratia quam accepit, et audire vocem ad quam gaudeat. Non, inquit, gaudeo propter vocem meam, sed propter vocem sponsi gaudeo: ego in audiendo, ille in dicendo; ego auris, ille verbum. Qui enim custodit sponsam vel uxorem amici sui dat quidem operam ut nullus alius ametur; sed si amari se pro amico voluerit, et uti voluerit commendata sibi, quam detestandus universo generi humano apparet? Multos autem adulteros video, qui sponsam tanto pretio emptam possidere volunt, et id agunt verbis suis ut pro sponso amentur. AUG. But wherefore does he stand? Because he fails not, by reason of his humility. A sure ground this to stand upon, Whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. Again; He stands, and hears Him. So then if he fails, he hears Him not. Therefore the friend of the Bridegroom ought to stand and hear, i.e. to abide in the grace which he has received, and to hear the voice in which he rejoices. I rejoice not, he said, because of my own voice, but because of the Bridegroom’s voice. I rejoice; I in hearing, He in speaking; I am the ear, He the Word. For he who guards the bride or wife of his friend, takes care that she love none else; if he wish to be loved himself in the stead of his friend, and to enjoy her who was entrusted to him, how detestable does he appear to the whole world? Yet many are the adulterers I see, who would fain possess themselves of the spouse who was bought at so great a price, and who aim by their words at being loved themselves instead of the Bridegroom.
Chrysostomus: Vel aliter. Quod dicit qui stat, non sine causa posuit; sed indicans quod quae sua sunt, iam cessaverunt, et quoniam eum de reliquo stare oportet et audire: quod quidem dicit, a parabola sermonem transferens ad propositum: quia enim sponsi et sponsae mentionem fecerat, ostendit qualiter haec sponsalia fiant, quia per vocem et doctrinam: fides enim est ex auditu; auditus autem per verbum Dei. Et quoniam ea quae speraverat evenerunt, idcirco subdit in hoc autem gaudium meum impletum est; idest, perfectum est a me opus quod fieri oportebat, et plus nihil operari possum de reliquo. CHRYS. Or thus; The expression, which stands, is not without meaning, but indicates that his part is now over, and that for the future he must stand and listen. This is a transition from the parable to the real subject. For having introduced the figure of a bride and bridegroom, he shows how the marriage is consummated; viz. by word and doctrine. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And since the things he had hoped for had come to pass, he adds, This my Joy therefore is fulfilled; i.e. The work which I had to do is finished, and nothing more is left, that I can do.
Theophylactus: Unde nunc gaudeo, quod scilicet omnes illum attendunt. Si enim non accessisset ad sponsum sponsa, idest populus, tunc dolerem ego paranymphus. THEOPHYL. For which cause I rejoice now, that all men follow Him. For had the bride, i.e. the people, not come forth to meet the Bridegroom, then I, as the friend of the Bridegroom, should have grieved.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. In hoc gaudium meum impletum est, ut scilicet gaudeam ad vocem sponsi. Habeo gratiam meam; plus non mihi assumo, ne quod accepi amittam. Qui enim vult gaudere de se, tristis est; qui autem vult de Deo gaudere, semper gaudebit, quia Deus sempiternus est. AUG. Or thus; This my joy is fulfilled, i.e. my joy at hearing the Bridegroom’s voice. I have my gift; I claim no more, lest I lose that which I have received. He who would rejoice in himself, has sorrow; but he who would rejoice in the Lord, shall ever rejoice, because God is everlasting.
Beda: Gaudio autem gaudet homo propter vocem sponsi, cum intelligit non se debere gaudere de sapientia sua, sed de sapientia quam accepit a domino. Quisquis enim in benefactis non gloriam suam vel laudem requirit, neque terrena lucra sed caelestia cupit, hic amicus est sponsi. BEDE; He rejoices at hearing the Bridegroom’s voice, who knows that he should not rejoice in his own wisdom, but in the wisdom which God gives him. Whoever in his good works seeks not his own glory, or praise, or earthly gain, but has his affections set on heavenly things; this man is the friend of the Bridegroom.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Deinde non solum circa praesentia, sed etiam circa futura passionem invidiae a se removit, dicens illum oportet crescere, me autem minui; quasi dicat: quae nostra sunt, steterunt, et cessaverunt de reliquo; crescunt autem quae sunt illius. CHRYS. He next dismisses the motions of envy, not only as regards the present, but also the future, saying, He must increase, but I must decrease: as if he said, My office has ceased, and is ended; but His advances.
Augustinus: Sed quid est hoc illum oportet crescere? Deus nec crescit, nec minuitur. Sed Ioannes et Iesus, quod ad carnem attinet, coaevi erant: sex menses, qui intererant, nullam distinguunt aetatem. Magnum est hoc sacramentum. Antequam veniret dominus, homines gloriabantur de se: venit ille homo, ut minueretur hominis gloria et augeretur gloria Dei. Sic enim venit ille ut dimitteret peccata, et homo confiteretur: etenim confessio hominis, humilitas hominis, miseratio Dei, altitudo Dei. Hanc autem veritatem etiam passionibus significaverunt Christus et Ioannes: nam Ioannes capite minutus est, Christus autem in cruce exaltatus. Deinde natus est Christus, cum iam inciperent crescere dies; natus est Ioannes quando coeperant minui dies. Crescat ergo in nobis gloria Dei, et minuatur gloria nostra, ut in Deo crescat et nostra. Quanto autem magis intelligis Deum, videtur in te crescere Deus; non autem in se crescit, sed semper perfectus est: sicut si curarentur alicuius oculi ex pristina caecitate, et inciperet videre paululum lucis, et alia die plus videret, videretur ei lux crescere; lux tamen perfecta est, sive ipse videat, sive non: sic enim et interior homo proficit quidem in Deo, et Deus in illo videtur crescere; ipse autem minuitur, ut a gloria sua decidat, et in gloria Dei surgat. AUG. What means this, He must increase? God neither increases, nor decreases. And John and Jesus, according to the flesh, were of the same age: for the six months’ difference between them is of no consequence. This is a great mystery. Before our Lord came, men gloried in themselves; He came in no man’s nature, that the glory of man might be diminished, and the glory of God exalted. For He came to remit sins upon man’s confession: a man’s confession, a man’s humility, is God’s pity, God’s exaltation. This truth Christ and John proved, even by their modes of suffering: John was beheaded, Christ was lifted up on the cross. Then Christ was born, when the days begin to lengthen; John, when they begin to shorten. Let God’s glory then increase in us, and our own decrease, that ours also may increase in God. But it is because you understand God more and more, that He seems to increase in you: for in His own nature He increases not, but is ever perfect: even as to a man cured of blindness, who begins to see a little, and daily sees more, the light seems to increase, whereas it is in reality always at the fall, whether he sees it or not. In like manner the inner man makes advancement in God, and it seems as if God were increasing in Him; but it is He Himself that decreases, falling from the height of His own glory, and rising in the glory of God.
Theophylactus: Vel aliter. Sicut aliorum luminarium, adveniente sole, lumen extingui videtur, licet non sit secundum veritatem extinctum, sed a maiori occultatum; sic et praecursor tamquam stella a sole celatus, minui dicitur. Crescit autem Christus prout paulatim manifestat se per miracula: non quod in virtutibus cresceret aut proficeret (haec nempe Nestorii est opinio), sed secundum ostensionem divinitatis eius. THEOPHYL. Or thus; As, on the sun rising, the light of the other heavenly bodies seems to be extinguished, though in reality it is only obscured by the greater light: thus the forerunner is said to decrease; as if he were a star hidden by the sun. Christ increases in proportion as he gradually discloses Himself by miracles; not in the sense of increase, or advancement in virtue, (the opinion of Nestorius,) but only as regards the manifestation of His divinity.

Lectio 10
31 ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν: ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλεῖ. ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐρχόμενος [ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν:] 32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖ,
31. He that comes from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaks of the earth: he that comes from heaven is above all. 32. And what he has seen and heard, that he testifies;

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sicut vermis ligna corrodit et aerugo ferrum, ita vana gloria nutrientem se perdit animam; ideo multo studio opus est ut hanc destruamus passionem: unde Ioannes multis rationibus discipulos suos habentes passionem hanc, vix mitigat; post illa enim quae antea dixerat, rursus eos aliis disponit sermonibus, dicens qui desursum venit, super omnes est; quasi dicat: quia vos meum extollitis testimonium, et ex hoc dicitis me esse digniorem fide, eo scilicet cui testimonium perhibui; hoc necesse est vos scire, quod non est eum qui de caelis venit, fieri fide dignum ab eo qui terram habitat; et hoc est quod dicit super omnes est, quia ipse sibi sufficiens, et quod omnibus incomparabiliter maior est. CHRYS. As the worm gnaws wood, and rusts iron, so vainglory destroys the soul that cherishes it. But it is a most obstinate fault. John with all his arguments can hardly subdue it in his disciples: for after what he has said above, he said yet again, He that comes from above is above all: meaning, You extol my testimony, and say that the witness is more worthy to be believed, than He to whom he bears witness. Know this, that He who comes from heaven, cannot be accredited by an earthly witness. He is above all; being perfect in Himself, and above comparison.
Theophylactus: Ipse enim Christus desursum venit a patre descendens, et super omnes est, distinctus ab omnibus. THEOPHYL. Christ comes from above, as descending from the Father; and is above all, as being elected in preference to all.
Alcuinus: Vel desursum venit, idest de altitudine humanae naturae, quam habuit ante peccatum primi hominis: de illa enim altitudine assumpsit verbum Dei humanam naturam: non assumpsit culpam cuius assumpsit poenam. Sequitur qui est de terra, de terra est, idest terrenus est, et de terra loquitur, idest terrena loquitur. ALCUIN. Or, comes from above; i.e. from the height of that human nature which was before the sin of the first man. For it was that human nature which the Word of God assumed: He did not take upon Him man’s sin, as He did his punishment. He that is of the earth is of the earth; i.e. is earthly, and speaks of the earth, speaks earthly things.
Chrysostomus: Et nimirum non ex terra erant ei omnia: etenim animam habebat, et spiritum participabat non ex terra. Qualiter igitur ipse de terra se esse dicit? Nihil aliud per hoc ostendit occulte quam quod parvus est, utpote humi reptans, et in terra natus, et nulla comparatione dignus ad Christum, qui nobis desuper venit. Non autem dicit de terra loquitur, quoniam ex propria mente loquebatur; sed de terra se loqui dicit in comparatione ad Christi doctrinam; quasi dicat: parva et humilia sunt quae mea sunt, comparata his quae Christi sunt, qualia decens est suscipere terrestrem naturam in comparatione ad illum in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei absconditi. CHRYS. And yet he was not altogether of the earth; for he had a soul, and partook of a spirit, which was not of the earth. What means he then by saying that he is of the earth? Only to express his own worthlessness, that he is one born on the earth, creeping on the ground, and not to be compared with Christ, Who comes from above. Speaks of the earth, does not mean that he spoke from his own understanding; but that, in comparison with Christ’s doctrine, he spoke of the earth: as if he said, My doctrine is mean and humble, compared with Christ’s; as becomes an earthly teacher, compared with Him, in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel quod dicit de terra loquitur, de homine dicebat quantum ad ipsum hominem pertinet. Si enim aliqua loquitur divina, illuminatus est a Deo; sicut apostolus dicit: non autem ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. Ergo Ioannes, et quod ad Ioannem pertinet, de terra est, et de terra loquitur: si quid divinum audivistis a Ioanne, illuminantis est, non recipientis. AUG. Or, speaks of all the earth, he said of the man, i.e. of himself, so far as he speaks merely humanly. If he says ought divine, he is enlightened by God to say it: as said the Apostle; Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. John then, so far as pertains to John, is of the earth, and speaks of the earth: if you hear ought divine from him, attribute it to the Enlightener, not to him who has received the light.
Chrysostomus: Extincta igitur discipulorum passione, de reliquo cum ampliori propalatione loquitur de Christo: nam ante hoc superfluum erat ista praemittere, in mente audientium locum habere nondum valentia; unde sequitur qui de caelo venit. CHRYS. Having corrected the bad feeling of his disciples, he comes to discourse more deeply upon Christ. Before this it would have been useless to reveal the truths which could not yet gain a place in their minds. It follows therefore, He that comes from heaven.
Augustinus: Idest, de patre venit, duobus modis super omnes est: primo super omnem humanitatem, qui de ipsa, priusquam peccaret, venit: secundo iuxta altitudinem patris, cui est aequalis. GLOSS. That is, from the Father. He is above all in two ways; first, in respect of His humanity, which was that of man before he sinned: secondly, in respect of the loftiness of the Father, to whom He is equal.
Chrysostomus: Magnum autem quid et excelsum dicens de Christo, rursus ad humilius ducit sermonem, dicens et quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur. Quia scilicet per sensus hos omnia certissime discimus, et digni fide aestimamur esse magistri de his quae visu suscepimus, vel auditu apprehendimus; hoc de Christo astruere volens Ioannes dixit quod vidit et audivit, hoc testatur: ostendens, quod nihil eorum quae ab ipso dicebantur, falsum est, sed omnia vera sunt; quasi dicat: ego indigeo audire ea quae ab illo dicuntur qui desuper venit, annuntians ea quae vidit et audivit; idest, quae solus ipse manifeste novit. CHRYS. But after this, high and solemn mention of Christ, his tone lowers: And what he has seen and heard, that he testifies. As our senses are our surest channels of knowledge, and teachers are most depended on who have apprehended by sight or hearing what they teach, John adds this argument in favor of Christ, that, what he has seen and heard, that he testifies: meaning that every thing which He said is true. I want, said John, to hear what things He, Who comes from above, has seen and heard, i.e. what He, and He alone, knows with certainty.
Theophylactus: Cum ergo audis quod Christus ea quae audivit et vidit a patre, loquitur, non putes quod a patre indigeat addiscere; sed quia omnia quaecumque naturaliter novit, a patre habet, propter hoc a patre audire dicitur, quaecumque novit. Sed quid est quod filius audivit a patre? Forte filius, patris verbum audivit? Immo filius patris verbum est. THEOPHYL. When you hear then, that Christ speaks what He saw and heard from the Father, do not suppose that He needs to be taught by the Father; but only that that knowledge, which He has naturally, is from the Father. For this reason He is said to have heard, whatever He knows, from the Father.
Augustinus: Quando concipis verbum quod proferas, rem vis dicere, et ipsa rei conceptio in corde tuo iam verbum est. Quomodo ergo tu verbum quod loqueris, in corde habes, et apud te est, sic Deus edidit verbum; hoc est, genuit filium. Cum ergo verbum Dei filius sit, filius autem locutus est nobis, non verbum suum, sed verbum patris se nobis loqui voluit, qui verbum patris loquebatur. Hoc ergo quomodo decuit et oportuit, dixit Ioannes. AUG. But what is it, w which the Son has heard from the Father? Has He heard the word of the Father? Yes, but He is the Word of the Father. When you conceives a word, wherewith to name a thing, the very, conception of that thing in the mind is a word. Just then as you have in your mind and with you your spoken word; even so God uttered the Word, i.e. begat the Son. Since then the Son is the Word of God, and the Son has spoken the Word of God to us, He has spoken to us the Father’s word. What John said is therefore true.

Lectio 11
32b καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει. 33 ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν. 34 ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦμα. 35 ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱόν, καὶ πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ. 36 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον: ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ' ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ' αὐτόν.
32. - and no man receives his testimony. 33. He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that God is true. 34. For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him. 35. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. 36. He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Dixerat quod vidit, et audivit, hoc testatur; quasi excusans, ne quia pauci interim credituri erant, falsa aestimarentur esse quae dicuntur; et propter hoc subdit et testimonium eius nemo accipit, idest pauci: habebat enim discipulos, qui accipiebant testimonium eius in his quae dicebantur. In hoc autem suos discipulos tangit nondum credentes in eum: simul etiam Iudaicam ostendit insensibilitatem, sicut et in principio Evangelii dictum est in propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. CHRYS. Having said, And what he has seen and beard, that he testifies, to prevent any from supposing, that what he said was false, because only a few for the present believed, he adds, And no man receives his testimony; i.e. Only a few; for he had disciples who received his testimony. John is alluding to the unbelief of his own disciples, and to the insensibility of the Jews, of whom we read in the beginning of the Gospel, He came to His own, and His own received Him not.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Est quidam populus praeparatus ad iram Dei damnandus cum Diabolo. Horum nemo accipit testimonium Christi. Attendit ergo in spiritu divisionem, in genere autem humano commixtionem; et quod nondum locis separatum est, separavit cordis aspectu; et vidit duos populos, infidelium et fidelium. Attendit infideles, et ait et testimonium eius nemo accipit: deinde tulit se a sinistra, et aspexit ad dexteram, et secutus ait qui autem acceperit eius testimonium, signavit. AUG. Or thus; There is a people reserved for the wrath of God, and to be condemned with the devil; of whom none receives the testimony of Christ. And others there are ordained to eternal life. Mark how mankind are divided spiritually, though as human beings they are mixed up together: and John separated them by the thoughts of their heart, though as yet they were not divided in respect of place, and looked on them as two classes, the unbelievers, and the believers. Looking to the unbelievers, he said, No man receives his testimony. Then turning to those on the right hand he said, He that has received his testimony, has set to his seal.
Chrysostomus: Idest, monstravit; et adhuc augens timorem, addit quoniam Deus verax est; ostendens quoniam non aliter quis discredet huic, nisi falsi arguerit Deum, qui misit illum: quia nihil extra ea quae sunt patris loquitur; et hoc est quod subdit quem enim misit Deus, verba Dei loquitur. CHRYS. i.e. has shown that God is true. This is to alarm them: for it is as much as saying, no one can disbelieve Christ without convicting God, Who sent Him, of falsehood: inasmuch as He speaks nothing but what is of the Father. For He, it follows, Whom God has sent, speaks the words of God.
Alcuinus: Vel aliter. Signavit, idest signum posuit in corde suo, quasi singulare et speciale aliquid, hunc esse verum Deum, qui passus est ad salutem humani generis. ALCUIN. Or, Has put to his seal, i.e. has put a seal on his heart, for a singular and special token, that this is the true God, Who suffered for the salvation of mankind.
Augustinus: Quid est quia Deus verax est, nisi quia homo mendax est, et Deus verax est? Quia nemo hominum potest dicere quid veritas est, nisi illuminetur ab eo qui mentiri non potest. Deus ergo verax, Christus autem Deus. Vis probare? Accipe testimonium eius, et invenies. Sed si nondum intelligis Deum, nondum accepisti testimonium eius. Ipse ergo Christus est Deus verax, et misit illum Deus. Deus misit Deum. Iunge ambos, unus Deus: hoc enim quem misit Deus, de Christo dicebat, ut se ab ipso distingueret. Quid autem? Ipsum Ioannem nonne Deus misit? Sed vide quid adiungat non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum. Hominibus ad mensuram dat, unico filio non dat ad mensuram. Alii quidem datur per spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo scientiae; aliud habet ille, et aliud iste habet. Mensura divisio quaedam donorum est, sed Christus quae dat, non ad mensuram accepit. AUG. What is it, that God is true, except that God is true, and every man a liar? For no man can say what truth is, till he is enlightened by Him who cannot lie. God then is true, and Christ is God. Would you have proof? Hear His testimony, and you will find it so. But if you do not yet understand God, you have not yet received His testimony. Christ then Himself is God the true, and God has sent Him; God has sent God, join both together; they are One God. For John said, Whom God has sent, to distinguish Christ from himself. What then, was not John himself sent by God? Yes; but mark what follows, For God gives not the Spirit by measure to Him. To men He gives by measure, to His only Son He gives not by measure. To one man is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge: one has one thing, another another; for measure implies a kind of division of gifts. But Christ did not receive by measure, though He gave by measure.
Chrysostomus: Spiritum autem hic actionem spiritus sancti dicit: vult enim ostendere quoniam omnes quidem nos in mensura spiritus actiones suscipimus; Christus autem omnem spiritus suscipit actionem. Qualiter igitur erit dignus suspectus haberi? Nihil enim dicit quod non Dei est, neque quod non spiritus est; et interim de Deo verbo nihil loquitur, sed a patre et spiritu dignam fide facit doctrinam. Nam quoniam Deus est, sciverant; et quoniam spiritus est, noverant, etsi non decentem de eo opinionem habebant: quoniam autem filius est nesciverant. CHRYS. By Spirit here is meant the operation of the Holy Spirit. He wishes to show that all of us have received the operation of the Spirit by measure, but that Christ contains within Himself the whole operation of the Spirit. How then shall He be suspected, Who said nothing, but what is from God, and the Spirit? For He makes no mention yet of God the Word, but rests His doctrine on the authority of the Father and the Spirit. For men knew that there was God, and knew that there was the Spirit, (although they had not right belief about His nature;) but that there was the Son they did not know.
Augustinus: Quia ergo de filio dixerat non ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum, subiungit pater diligit filium; et adiecit et omnia dedit in manu eius: ut nosses et hic distincte, quoniam dictum est pater diligit filium. Pater enim diligit Ioannem aut Paulum, et tamen non omnia dedit in manu eorum. Pater diligit filium; sed quomodo filium, non quomodo dominus servum; quomodo unicum, non quomodo adoptatum. Itaque omnia dedit in manu eius, ut tantus sit filius quantus est pater. Ergo cum ad nos dignatus est mittere filium, non putemus nobis aliquid minus missum quam est pater. AUG. Having said of the Son, God gives not the Spirit by measure to Him; he adds, The Father loves the Son, and farther adds, and has given all things into His hand; in order to show that the Father loves the Son, in a peculiar sense. For the Father loves John, and Paul, and yet has not given all things into their hands. But the Father loves the Son, as the Son, not as a master his servant: as an only, not as an adopted, Son. Wherefore He has given all things into His hand; so that, as great as the Father is, so great is the Son; let us not think then that, because He has deigned to send the Son, any one inferior to the Father has been sent.
Theophylactus: Sic ergo secundum divinitatem omnia dedit pater filio natura, non gratia. Vel dedit omnia in manu eius, secundum humanitatem; dominatur enim omnium eorum et quae in caelo et quae in terra sunt. THEOPHYL. The Father then has given all things to the Son in respect of His divinity; of right, not of grace. Or; He has given all things into His hand, in respect of His humanity: inasmuch as He is made Lord of all things that are in heaven, and that are in earth.
Alcuinus: Et quia omnia sunt in manu eius, ergo et vita aeterna; unde subdit qui credit in filium, habet vitam aeternam. ALCUIN. And because all things are in His hand, the life everlasting is too: and therefore it follows, He that believes on the Son has everlasting life.
Beda: Non debet hic intelligi fides quae verbo tenus tenetur, sed quae operibus adimpletur. BEDE. We must understand here not a faith in words only, but a faith which is developed in works.
Chrysostomus: Non enim hic dicit quod credere in filium sufficiat ad vitam habendam perpetuam, cum ipse alibi dicat: non omnis qui dicit mihi: domine, domine, intrabit in regnum caelorum. Sed et quae in spiritum est blasphemia, sufficit sola mittere in Gehennam. Sed etsi in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum quis recte crediderit, ne aestimemus sufficere ad salutem: opus est enim nobis vita et conversatione recta. Deinde sciens non ita promissione bonorum multos adduci ut terribilium minis, in hoc sermonem concludit, dicens qui autem incredulus est filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum. Vide qualiter hic ad patrem reducit eum qui est supplicii sermonem: non enim dixit: ita filii, quamvis ipse sit iudex, sed patrem iudicem instituit, magis terrere volens. Et non dicit manebit in eo, sed super eum, ostendens quoniam nunquam ab eo desistet: ut enim non aestimet quis mortem esse temporaneam, dixit non videbit vitam. CHRYS. He means not here, that to believe on the Son is sufficient to gain everlasting life, for elsewhere He says, Nor every one that said to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. And the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is of itself sufficient to send into hell. But we must not think that even a right belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is sufficient for salvation; for we have need of a good life and conversation. Knowing then that the greater part are not moved so much by the promise of good, as by the threat of punishment, he concludes, But He that believes not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him. See how He refers to the Father again, when He speaks of punishment. He said not, the wrath of the Son, though the Son is judge; but makes the Father the judge, in order to alarm men more. And He does not say, in Him, but on Him, meaning that it Will never depart from Him; and for the same reason He says, shall not see life, i.e. to show that He did not mean only a temporary death!
Augustinus: Et non dixit ira Dei venit ad eum, sed manet super eum; quia omnes qui nascuntur mortales, habent secum iram Dei, quam accepit primus Adam. Venit filius Dei, non habens peccatum, et indutus est mortalitate: mortuus est ut vivas. Qui ergo non vult credere in filium, ira Dei manet super eum, de qua dicit apostolus: eramus natura filii irae. AUG. Nor does He say, The wrath of God comes to him, but, abides on him. For all who are born, are under the wrath of God, which the first Adam incurred. The Son of God came without sin, and was clothed with mortality: He died that you might live. Whosoever then will not believe on the Son, on him abides the wrath of God, of which the Apostle speaks, We were by nature the children of wrath.

CHAPTER IV
Lectio 1
1 ὡς οὖν ἔγνω ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤκουσαν οἱ φαρισαῖοι ὅτι Ἰησοῦς πλείονας μαθητὰς ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει ἢ Ἰωάννης     2 —καίτοιγε Ἰησοῦς αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐβάπτιζεν ἀλλ' οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ —     3 ἀφῆκεν τὴν Ἰουδαίαν καὶ ἀπῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.     4 ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν διέρχεσθαι διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας. 5 ἔρχεται οὖν εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας λεγομένην Συχὰρ πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ [τῷ] Ἰωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ: 6 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πηγὴ τοῦ Ἰακώβ. ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως ἐπὶ τῇ πηγῇ: ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη.
1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) 3. He left Judea, and departed again into Galilee. 4. And he must needs go through Samaria. 5. Then comes he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6. Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.

Glossa: Postquam ostendit Evangelista qualiter Ioannes repressit discipulorum suorum invidiam, quam de profectu doctrinae Christi conceperant; hic ostendit quomodo Christus declinavit Pharisaeorum malitiam, qui contra ipsum ex eadem causa zelo invidiae movebantur; unde dicitur ut ergo cognovit Iesus quia audierunt Pharisaei. GLOSS. The Evangelist, after relating how John checked the envy of his disciples, on the success of Christ’s teaching, comes next to the envy of the Pharisees, and Christ’s retreat front the them. When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard, &c.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Utique dominus, si sciret Pharisaeos ita de se cognovisse quod plures discipulos faceret, et quod plures baptizaret, ut eis hoc ad salutem valeret sequendi eum, non relinqueret Iudaeam terram, sed propter illos maneret ibi; quia vero cognovit eorum scientiam, simul et invidentiam, quia non hoc propterea didicerunt ut sequerentur, sed ut persequerentur, abiit inde. Poterat quidem et praesens ab his non teneri, si nollet; sed in omni re quam gessit ut homo, hominibus in se credituris praebebat exemplum, quia unusquisque servus Dei non peccat si secesserit in alium locum videns furorem se persequentium. Fecit ergo hoc ille magister bonus, ut doceret, non ut timeret. AUG. Truly had the Pharisees’ knowledge that our Lord was making more disciples, and baptizing more than John, been such as to lead them heartily to follow Him, He would not have left Judea, but would have remained for their sake: but seeing, as He did, that this knowledge of Him was coupled with envy, and made them not followers, but persecutors, He departed thence. He could too, had He pleased, have stayed amongst them, and escaped their hands; but He wished to show His own example to believers in time to come, that it was no sin for a servant of God to fly from the fury of persecutors. He did it like a good teacher, not out of fear for Himself, but for our instruction.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Hoc etiam fecit mitigans eorum invidiam. Conveniens est etiam eum hoc fecisse, ut non discrederetur carnis dispensatio: si enim retentus effugisset, in suspicionem devenisset veritas carnis. CHRYS. He did it too to pacify the envy of men, and perhaps to avoid bringing the dispensation of the incarnation into suspicion. For had he been taken and escaped, the reality of His flesh would have been doubted.
Augustinus: Fortassis autem hoc moveat quod dictum est baptizabat plures quam Ioannes; et postea subiectum est quamquam Iesus non baptizaret. Quid ergo? Falsum dictum erat, et correctum est? AUG. It may perplex you, perhaps, to be told that Jesus baptized more than John, and then immediately after, Though Jesus Himself baptized not. What? Is there a mistake made, and then corrected?
Chrysostomus: Non autem ipse Christus baptizabat; sed relatores volentes erigere eos qui audiebant, in invidiam, ita annuntiabant, scilicet quod Christus plures baptizaret quam Ioannes. Sed cuius gratia ipse non baptizaret, Ioannes praedixit dicens: ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu sancto et igne. Nondum autem spiritum sanctum dabat: decenter igitur nec baptizabat. Discipuli vero id agebant, volentes multos adducere ad salutarem doctrinam: ut enim non semper circumeuntes congregarent eos qui credituri erant, ut in Simone et fratre fecit, ideo baptizare instituerunt. Nihil enim amplius habebat discipulorum Baptisma, Ioannis Baptismate: utrumque enim expers erat ea quae ex spiritu est gratia; et utrique una causa erat, scilicet adducere ad Christum eos qui baptizabantur. CHRYS. Christ Himself did not baptize, but those who reported the fact, in order to raise the envy of their hearers, so represented it as to appear that Christ Himself baptized. The reason why He baptized not Himself, had been already declared by John, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Now He had not yet given the Holy Spirit: it was therefore fitting that He should not baptize. But His disciples baptized, as an efficacious mode of instruction; better than gathering up believers here and there, as had been done in the case of Simon and his brother. Their baptism, however, had no more virtue than the baptism of John; both being without the grace of the Spirit, and both having one object, viz. that of bringing men to Christ.
Augustinus: Vel aliter. Utrumque verum est: quia Iesus et baptizabat et non baptizabat: baptizabat enim, quia ipse mundabat; non baptizabat, quia non ipse tingebat. Praebebant discipuli ministerium corporis; praebebat ille adiutorium maiestatis, de quo dictum est: hic est qui baptizat. AUG. Or, both are true; for Jesus both baptized, and baptized not. He baptized, in that He cleansed: He baptized not, in that He dipped not. The disciples supplied the ministry of the body, He the aid of that Majesty of which it was said, The Same is, He which baptize.
Alcuinus: Solet autem quaeri si in Baptismo discipulorum Christi spiritus sanctus daretur, cum dicatur: spiritus sanctus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus. Sed sciendum, quia dabatur spiritus, licet non ea manifestatione qua post ascensionem in linguis igneis datus est; quia sicut ipse Christus in homine quem ferebat, semper habebat spiritum, sed tamen postea super ipsum baptizatum visibiliter descendit spiritus in specie columbae; sic ante manifestum et visibilem adventum spiritus sancti quicumque sancti eum latenter habere potuerunt. ALCUIN. The question is often asked, whether the Holy Ghost was given by the baptism of the disciples; when below it is said, The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. We reply, that the Spirit was given, though not in so manifest a way as he was after the Ascension, in the shape of fiery tongues. For, as Christ Himself in His human nature ever possessed the Spirit, and yet afterwards at His baptism the Spirit descended visibly upon Him in the form of a dove; so before the manifest and visible coming of the Holy Spirit, all saints might possess the Spirit secretly.
Augustinus ad SeleucianumIntelligimus autem discipulos Christi iam fuisse baptizatos sive Baptismo Ioannis, sicut nonnulli arbitrantur, sive, quod magis credibile est, Baptismo Christi: neque enim ministerio baptizandi defuit, ut haberet baptizatos servos per quos ceteros baptizaret, qui non defuit illius humilitatis ministerio, quando eis lavit pedes. AUG. But we must believe that the disciples of Christ were already baptized themselves, either with John’s baptism, or, as is more probable, with Christ’s. For He who had stooped to the humble service of washing His disciples’ feet, had not failed to administer baptism to His servants, who would thus be enabled in their turn to baptize others.
Chrysostomus: Secedens autem Christus de Iudaea, rursus eisdem adhaeret quibus et prius; unde subditur et abiit iterum in Galilaeam. Sicut autem apostoli expulsi a Iudaeis ad gentes venerunt, ita et Christus ad Samaritanos accedit; sed tamen omnem auferens a Iudaeis excusationem, non principaliter ad eos vadit, sed quasi transiens; quod Evangelista occulte ostendit, dicens oportebat autem eum transire per mediam Samariam. Accepit autem hanc nominationem, quia mons Samariae Somer dicebatur, ab eo qui possedit; sed qui ibi habitabant, olim non Samaritani, sed Israelitae vocabantur. Tempore autem procedente offenderunt Deum, et rex Assyriorum ultra eos ibi manere non permisit; sed in Babylonem et Medos duxit; in Samaria vero gentes ex diversis locis ductas habitare fecit. Volens autem Deus ostendere quod non propter imbecillitatem Iudaeos tradidit, sed propter peccata eorum qui traditi sunt; immisit barbaris leones, qui eos laedebant. Annuntiata sunt haec regi, et mittit sacerdotem quemdam, traditurum eis Dei leges. Sed tamen neque ita ex toto ab impietate destiterunt, sed ex media parte. Etenim tempore procedente rursus ad idola quidam resilierunt; venerabantur tamen Deum qui a monte Samaritanos seipsos vocabant. CHRYS. Christ on withdrawing from Judea, joined those whom He was with before, as we react next, And departed again into Galilee. As the Apostles, when they were expelled by the Jews, went to the Gentiles, so Christ goes to the Samaritans. But, to deprive the Jews of all excuse, He does not go to stay there, but only takes it on His road, as the Evangelist implies by saying, And he must needs go through Samaria. Samaria receives its name from Somer, a mountain there, so called from the name of a former possessor of it. The inhabitants of the country were formerly not Samaritans, but Israelites. But in process of time they fell under God’s wrath, and the king of Assyria transplanted them to Babylon and Media; placing Gentiles from various parts in Samaria in their room. God however, to show that it was not for want of power on His part that he delivered up the Jews, but for the sins of the people themselves, sent lions to afflict the barbarians. This was told the king, and he sent a priest to instruct them in God’s law. But not even then did they wholly cease from their iniquity, but only half changed. For in process of time they turned to idols again, though they still worshipped God, calling themselves after the mountain, Samaritans.
Beda: Ideo autem oportebat ipsum transire per Samariam, quia sita est inter Iudaeam et Galilaeam. Est autem Samaria insignis provinciae Palaestinae civitas, adeo ut tota regio ei sociata Samaria dicatur. Ad quem igitur ipsius regionis locum dominus verterit, Evangelista ostendit; unde dicitur venit ergo in civitatem Samariae, quae dicitur Sichar. BEDE. He must needs pass through Samaria; because that country lay between Judea and Galilee. Samaria was the principal city of a province of Palestine, and gave its name to the whole district connected with it. The particular place to which our Lord went is next given: Then comes He to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar.
Theophylactus: Postquam autem filii Iacob illam civitatem desertam fecerunt, occidentes Sichimitas, hanc civitatem desertam tempore procedente dedit Iacob in sortem Ioseph; unde dicitur: do tibi partem unam extra fratres tuos, quam tuli de manu Amorrhaei, in gladio et arcu meo; et hoc est quod subditur iuxta praedium quod dedit Iacob Ioseph filio suo. Sequitur erat autem ibi fons Iacob. THEOPHYL. But after the sons of Jacob had desolated the city, by the slaughter of the Sychemites, Jacob annexed it to the portion of his son Joseph as we read in Genesis, I have given to you one portion above your brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword, and with my bow. This is referred to in what follows, Near to the place of ground which Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob’s well was there.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Puteus erat: sed omnis puteus fons, non omnis fons puteus: ubi enim aqua de terra manat, et usum praebet haurientibus, fons dicitur; sed si in promptu et superficie sit, fons tantum dicitur; si autem in alto et in profundo sit, ita puteus vocatur ut nomen fontis non amittat. AUG. It was a well. Every, well is a spring, but every spring is not a well. Any water that rises from the ground, and can be drawn for use, is a spring: but where it is ready at hand, and on the surface, it is called a spring only; where it is creep and low down, it is called a well, not a spring.
Chrysostomus: Locus ille erat ubi pro Dina, levi et Simeon gravem occisionem fecerunt. CHRYS. It was the place where Simeon and Levi made a great slaughter for Dinah.
Theophylactus: Quare autem Evangelista de praedio et fonte facit mentionem? Primo quidem ut, cum audieris mulierem dicentem quod pater noster Iacob dedit nobis hunc fontem, non admireris; secundo ex commemoratione fontis et praedii edocemur quod ea quae patriarchae propter fidem quam in Deo habebant, adepti sunt, Iudaei propter eorum impietatem perdiderunt, et eorum loca gentibus tradita sunt: quare nihil novi nunc accidit quod gentiles pro Iudaeis regnum caelorum consecuti sunt. THEOPHYL. But why does the Evangelist make mention of the parcel of ground, and the well? First, to explain what the woman says, Our father Jacob gave us this well; secondly, to remind you that what the Patriarchs obtained by their faith in God, the Jews had lost by their impiety. They had been supplanted to make room for Gentiles. And therefore there is nothing new in what has now taken place, i.e.; in the Gentiles succeeding to the kingdom of heaven in the place of the Jews.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Christus igitur in Samariam accedens, facilem et deliciosam vitam abiciens, laboriosam vero sequens, non subiugalibus utitur, sed ita difficulter incedit ut ex itinere fatigetur; erudiens nos ita a superfluis alienos esse ut multa necessaria abscindamus a nobis; et hoc Evangelista ostendit, dicens Iesus ergo fatigatus ex itinere. CHRYS. Christ prefers labor and exercise to ease and luxury, and therefore travels to Samaria, not in a carriage but on foot; until at last the exertion of the journey fatigues Him; a lesson to us, that so far from indulging in superfluities, we should often even deprive ourselves of necessaries: Jesus therefore being wearied with His journey, &c.
Augustinus: Invenimus Iesum fortem et infirmum: fortem, quia in principio erat verbum; infirmum, quia verbum caro factum est. Sic ergo infirmus Iesus, ab itinere fatigatus, sedebat super fontem. AUG. Jesus, we see, is strong and weak: strong, because in the beginning was the Word; weak, because the Word was made flesh. Jesus thus weak, being wearied with his journey, sat on the well.
Chrysostomus: Quasi dicat: non in throno aut pulvinari, sed simpliciter ut contingebat super terram. Sessio autem propter laborem facta est, et ut expectaret discipulos, et propter aestum refrigeraret corpus apud fontem; unde sequitur hora autem erat quasi sexta. CHRYS. As if to say, not on a seat, or a couch, but on the first place He saw - upon the ground. He sat down because He was wearied, and to wait for the disciples. The coolness of the well would be refreshing in the midday heat: And it was about the sixth hour.
Theophylactus: Et ne quis incusaret dominum quare ipse Samariam venerit, cum hoc discipulis suis prohibuerit, propter hoc dicit, quod circa illum locum sedebat, scilicet ab itinere fessus. THEOPHYL. He mentions our Lord’s sitting and resting from His journey, that none might blame Him for going to Samaria Himself, after He had forbidden the disciples going.
Alcuinus: Mystice autem dominus reliquit Iudaeam, idest infidelitatem eorum qui eum reprobaverunt, et per apostolos abiit in Galilaeam, idest in volubilitatem huius mundi, docens suos transmigrare de vitiis ad virtutes. Praedium autem non tam Ioseph quam Christo arbitror derelictum, cuius figuram Ioseph portaverit; quem vere sol adorat et luna et omnes stellae. Ad hoc praedium venit dominus, ut Samaritani, qui hereditatem sibi patriarchae Israel vindicare cupiebant, agnoscerent, et converterentur ad Christum, qui est patriarchae legitimus heres factus. ALCUIN. Our Lord left Judea also mystically, i.e. He left the unbelief of those who condemned Him, and by His Apostles, went into Galilee, i.e. into the fickleness of the world; thus teaching His disciples to pass from vices to virtues. The parcel of ground I conceive to have been left not so much to Joseph, as to Christ, of whom Joseph was a type; whom the sun, and moon, and all the stars truly adore. To this parcel of ground our Lord came, that the Samaritans, who claimed to be inheritors of the Patriarch Israel, might recognize Him, and be converted to Christ, the legal heir of the Patriarch.
Augustinus: Iter autem ipsius est caro pro nobis assumpta: qui enim ubique est, quo it, nisi quia non ad nos veniret nisi formam visibilis carnis assumeret? Ideo fatigatus ab itinere, quid est aliud quam fatigatus in carne? Quare ergo hora sexta? Quia aetate saeculi sexta. Computa tamquam unam horam, unam aetatem ab Adam usque ad Noe; secundam a Noe usque ad Abraham; tertiam ab Abraham usque ad David; quartam a David usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis; quintam usque ad Baptismum Ioannis; inde sexta agitur. AUG. His journey, is His assumption of the flesh for our sake. For whither does He go, Who is every where present? What is this, except that it was necessary for Him, in order to come to us, to take upon Him visibly a form of flesh? So then His being wearied with His Journey, what means it, but that He is wearied with the flesh? And wherefore is it the sixth hour? Because it is the sixth age of the world. Reckon severally as hours, the first age from Adam to Noah, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the carrying away into Babylon, the fifth from thence to the baptism of John; on this calculation the present age is the sixth hour.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Hora igitur sexta venit ad puteum dominus noster. Video in puteo tenebrosam profunditatem. Admoneor ergo intelligere mundi huius infimas partes, idest terrenas, quo venit dominus Iesus hora sexta, idest sexta aetate generis humani, tamquam senectute veteris hominis, quo iubemur exui, ut induamur novo; nam sexta aetas senectus est: quoniam prima est infantia, secunda pueritia, tertia adolescentia, quarta iuventus, quinta grandaevitas. Hora etiam sexta venit dominus ad puteum, idest medio die; unde iam incipit sol iste visibilis declinare in occasum: quoniam nobis vocatis a Christo, visibilium delectatio minuitur, ut invisibilium amore homo interior recreatus ad interiorem lucem, quae numquam excidit, revertatur. Quod autem sedit, humilitatem significat: vel quoniam solent sedere doctores, magistri denuntiat personam. AUG. At the sixth hour then our Lord comes to the well. The black abyss of the well, methinks, represents the lowest parts of this universe, i.e. the earth, to which Jesus came at the sixth hour, that is, in the sixth age of mankind, the old age, as it were, of the old man, which we are bidden to put off; that we may put on the new. For so do we reckon the different ages of man’s life: the first age is infancy, the second childhood, the third boyhood, the fourth youth, the fifth manhood, the sixth old age. Again, the sixth hour, being the middle of the day, the time at which the sun begins to descend, signifies that we, who are called by Christ, are to check our pleasure in visible things, that by the love of things invisible refreshing the inner man, we may be restored to the inward light which never fails. By His sitting is signified His humility, or perhaps His magisterial character; teachers being accustomed to sit.


Lectio 2
7 ἔρχεται γυνὴ ἐκ τῆς Σαμαρείας ἀντλῆσαι ὕδωρ. λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, δός μοι πεῖν: 8 οἱ γὰρ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπεληλύθεισαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἵνα τροφὰς ἀγοράσωσιν. 9 λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις, πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν παρ' ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς γυναικὸς Σαμαρίτιδος οὔσης; οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις. 10 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, δός μοι πεῖν, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν. 11 λέγει αὐτῷ [ἡ γυνή], κύριε, οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ: πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; 12 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;
7. There comes a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus says to her, Give me to drink. 8. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9. Then says the woman of Samaria to him, How is it that you, being a Jew, asks drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. 10. Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that says to you, Give me to drink; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water. 11. The woman says to him, Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then have you that living water? 12. Are you greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Ne quis dicat quoniam adversatur suo praecepto, Samaritanis loquens, posuit Evangelista multas causas eius quae ad mulierem est locutionis: non enim ad hoc venit antecedenter, ut Samaritanis loqueretur: non tamen quia propter hoc non venit, advenientem ad se expellere oportebat; dicitur enim venit mulier de Samaria haurire aquam. Vide quod et mulierem ostendit propter aestum exeuntem ad aquam. CHRYS. That this conversation might not appear a violation of His own injunctions against talking to the Samaritans, the Evangelist explains how it arose; viz. for He did not come with the intention beforehand of talking with the woman, but only would not send the woman away, when she had come. There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Observe, she comes quite by chance.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Haec autem mulier forma est Ecclesiae, non iustificatae, sed iam iustificandae. Pertinet autem ad imaginem rei, quod ab alienigenis venit: Samaritani enim alienigenae fuerunt, quamquam vicinas terras incolerent: ventura enim erat Ecclesia de gentibus, et aliena a genere Iudaeorum. AUG. The woman here is the type of the Church, not yet justified, but just about to be. And it is a part of the resemblance, that she comes from a foreign people. The Samaritans were foreigners, though they were neighbors and in like manner the Church was to come from the Gentiles, and to be alien from the Jewish race.
Theophylactus: Congrue autem disputatio ad mulierem a siti sumpsit occasionem; sequitur enim dicit ei Iesus: da mihi bibere: quia secundum humanitatem sitiebat et propter laborem et propter aestum. THEOPHYL. The argument with the woman arises naturally from the occasion: Jesus says to her, Give me to drink. As man. the labor and heat He had undergone had made Him thirsty.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Sitiebat etiam Iesus mulieris illius fidem: eorum enim fidem sitit pro quibus sanguinem fudit. AUG. Jesus also thirsted after that woman’s faith? At He thirsts for their faith, for whom He shed His blood.
Chrysostomus: Discimus autem domini non solum circa itinera validum robur, sed etiam circa cibaria negligentiam: non enim discipuli eius deferebant victualia; propter hoc enim subdit discipuli autem eius abierant in civitatem, ut cibos emerent. Hinc etiam Evangelista ostendit Christum humilem in eo quod solus relinquebatur. Et nimirum poterat, si vellet, aut non omnes emittere, aut abeuntibus illis alios ministros habere; sed noluit: etenim ita discipulos assuefecit omnem superbiam conculcare. Sed fortasse dicet aliquis: quid magnum est si humiles erant discipuli, piscatores existentes et tabernaculorum factores? Sed repente facti sunt omnibus regibus reverentiores, collocutores et secutores domini orbis terrarum. Maxime autem qui ex humilibus sunt, quando dignitates quandoque assumpserint, facilius ad superbiam elevantur, velut inexperte se habentes ad tantum honorem. Detinens igitur discipulos dominus in eadem humilitate erudiebat eos ut per omnia se restringerent. Mulier ergo audiens da mihi bibere, valde sapienter ad formandam interrogationem eum qui a Christo accepit sermonem; unde sequitur dicit ergo illi mulier: quomodo tu cum Iudaeus sis, a me bibere poscis, quae sum mulier Samaritana? Iudaeum quidem eum esse aestimavit a figura et a locutione. Intuere vero qualiter mulier inquisitiva erat. Etsi enim oportebat custodire Iesum, ut non couteretur illi; non tamen oportebat illam custodire. Non enim dixit Evangelista quod Samaritani Iudaeis non couterentur, sed subdit non enim coutuntur Iudaei Samaritani. Iudaei igitur a captivitate revertentes zelotype se ad Samaritanos habebant, sicut ad alienigenas et impugnatores. Neque etiam Scripturis omnibus utebantur: solum enim ea quae Moysi sunt suspicientes, prophetarum non multam curam habebant. Contendebant etiam se in nobilitatem Iudaicam immittere: unde et Iudaei eos cum omnibus gentibus abominabantur. CHRYS. This shows us too not only our Lord’s strength and endurance as a traveler, but also his carelessness about food; for his disciples did not carry about food with them, since it follows, His disciples were gone away into the city to buy food. Herein is shown the humility of Christ; He is left alone. It was in His power, had He pleased, not to send away all, or, on their going away, to leave others in their place to wait on Him. But He did not choose to have it so: for in this way He accustomed His disciples to trample upon pride of every kind. However some one will say, Is humility in fisherman and tent-makers so great a matter? But these very men were all on a sudden raised to the most lofty situation upon earth, that of friends and followers of the Lord of the whole earth. And men of humble origin, when they arrive at dignity, are on this very cry account more liable than others to be lifted up with pride; the honor being so new to them. Our Lord therefore to keep His disciples humble, taught them in all things to subdue themselves. The woman on being told, Give Me to drink, very naturally asks, How is it that You, being a Jew, asks drink of me, who am a woman of Samaria? She knew Him to be a Jew from His figure and speech. Here observe her simpleness. For even had our Lord been bound to abstain from dealing with her, that was His concern, not hers; the Evangelist saying not that the Samaritans would have no dealings with the Jews, but that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. The woman however, though not in fault herself, wished to correct what she thought a fault in another. The Jews after their return from the captivity entertained a jealousy of the Samaritans, whom they regarded as aliens, and enemies; and the Samaritans did not use all the Scriptures, but only the writings of Moses, and made little of the Prophets. They claimed to be of Jewish origin, but the Jews considered them Gentiles, and hated them, as they did the rest of the Gentile world.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Et omnino eorum vasculis non utebantur Iudaei. Et quia ferebat secum mulier vasculum, unde aquam hauriret, eo mirata est, quia Iudaeus petebat ab ea bibere, quod non solebant facere Iudaei. AUG. The Jews would not even use their vessels. So it would astonish the woman to hear a Jew ask to drink out of her vessel; a thing so contrary to Jewish rule.
Chrysostomus: Sed qualiter Christus quaesivit ab ea bibere, lege non concedente? Si autem quis dixerit, quia praesciebat eam non daturam; immo propter hoc neque petere oportebat. Est igitur dicendum, quod ideo petiit, quia indifferens erat de reliquo tales observantias praeterire. CHRYS. But why did Christ ask what the law allowed not? It is no answer to say that He knew she would not give it, for in that case, He clearly ought not to have asked for it. Rather His very reason for asking, was to show His indifference to such observances, and to abolish them for the future.
Augustinus: Ille autem qui bibere quaerebat, sitiebat fidem ipsius mulieris; unde sequitur respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: si scires donum Dei, et quis est qui dicit: da mihi bibere, tu forsitan petisses ab eo, et dedisset tibi aquam vivam. AUG. He who asked to drink, however, out of the woman’s vessel, thirsted for the woman’s faith: Jesus answered and said unto her, If you knew the gift of God, or Who it is that says to you, Give Me to drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you living water.
Origenes in Ioannem: Nam quasi dogma quoddam est, neminem accipere divinum donum ex non quaerentibus illud: ipsum autem salvatorem iubet pater poscere, ut det illi, secundum illud: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam. Et ipse salvator dicit: petite et dabitur vobis. Et ideo signanter dicit petisses et dedisset tibi. ORIGEN. For it is as it were a doctrine, that no one receives a divine gift, who seeks not for it. Even the Savior Himself is commanded by the Father to ask, that He may give it Him, as we read, Require of Me, and I will give you the heathen for you inheritance. And our Savior Himself says, Ask, and it shall be given you. Wherefore He says here emphatically, you would have asked of Him, and He would have given you.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Hic autem ei ostendit non se talem aquam petisse qualem ipsa intellexerat; sed quia ipse sciebat fidem eius, eidem sitienti spiritum sanctum dare cupiebat. Hanc enim recte intelligimus aquam vivam, quod est donum Dei, sicut ipse ait si scires donum. AUG. He lets her know that it was not the water, which she meant, that He asked for; but that knowing her faith, He wished to satisfy her thirst, by giving her the Holy Spirit. For so must we interpret the living water, which is the gift of God; as He says, If you knew the gift of God.
Augustinus: Dicitur enim vulgo aqua viva illa quae de fonte exit: illa enim quae colligitur de pluvia in lacunas aut cisternas, aqua viva non dicitur: et si de fonte manaverit, et in loco aliquo collecta steterit, nec ad se illud unde manabat admiserit, sed in rupto meatu tamquam a fontis tramite separata fuerit, non dicitur aqua viva. AUG. Living water is that which comes out of a spring, in distinction to what is collected in ponds and cisterns from the rain. If spring water too becomes stagnant, i.e. collects into some spot, where it is quite separated from its fountain head, it ceases to be living water.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Spiritus enim sancti gratiam quandoque Scriptura ignem, quandoque aquam vocat; ostendens quoniam non substantiae sunt haec nomina repraesentativa, sed actionis. Per ignis quidem appellationem erectivum et calidum gratiae, et consumptivum peccatorum aenigmatice insinuat: per aquae vero nuncupationem purgamentum quod est ex spiritu, et multum refrigerium recipientibus eum mentibus ostendit. CHRYS. In Scripture the grace of the Holy Spirit is sometimes called fire, sometimes water, which shows that these words are expressive not of its substance but of its action. The metaphor of fire conveys the lively and sin-consuming property of grace; that of water the cleansing of the Spirit, and the refreshing of the souls who receive Him.
Theophylactus: Gratiam ergo spiritus sancti dixit aquam vivam, idest vivificativam, refrigerativam et motivam. Nam gratia spiritus sancti semper movet illum qui bona operatur, ascensiones in corde suo disponens. THEOPHYL. The grace of the Holy Spirit then He calls living water; i.e. life-giving, refreshing, stirring. For the grace of the Holy Spirit is ever stirring him who does good works, directing the risings of his heart.
Chrysostomus: Iterum autem dominus eam ab humili suspicione erexit, qua existimabat eum unum multorum esse: multum enim honorem tribuens, dominum vocat; sequitur enim dicit ei mulier: domine, neque in quo haurias habes, et puteus altus est: unde ergo habes aquam vivam? CHRYS. These words raised the woman’s notions of our Lord, and make her think Him no common person. She addresses Him reverentially by the title of Lord; The woman says to Him, Lord, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has you that living water?
Augustinus in Ioannem: Videte quomodo intellexit aquam vivam, scilicet aquam quae erat in illo fonte; quasi dicat: tu mihi vis dare aquam vivam, et ego fero unde hauriam et tu non fers: de hac ergo aqua viva mihi dare non potes, quoniam hauritorium non habes. Forte alium fontem promittis? Sed numquid tu maior es patre nostro Iacob, qui dedit nobis puteum, et ipse ex eo bibit, et filii eius, et pecora eius? AUG. She understands the living water to be the water in the well; and therefore says, You wish to give me living water; but You have nothing to draw with as I have: You can not then give me this living water; Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Chrysostomus: Quasi dicat: non potes dicere quod Iacob dedit nobis hunc fontem, et alio ipse usus est: etenim ipse et sui ex eo bibebant: quod non esset, si meliorem alium habuissent. De hoc igitur fonte dare non potes: alium autem meliorem non est te habere, nisi confitearis te ipsum maiorem esse Iacob. Unde igitur habes aquam quam promittis te daturum nobis? CHRYS. As if she said, You can not say that Jacob gave us this spring, and used another himself; for he and they that were with him drank thereof; which would not have been done, had he had another better one. You can not then give me of this spring; and You have not another better spring, unless You confess Yourself greater than Jacob. Whence then have You the water, which You promise to give us?
Theophylactus: Quod autem dicit et pecora eius, ostensivum est abundantiae aquarum; quasi dicat: non solum suavis est aqua, ut Iacob ex ea biberet et filii eius; sed etiam intantum est abundans, ut tantae multitudini pecorum patriarchae sufficiat. THEOPHYL. The addition, and his cattle, shows the abundance of the water; as if she said, Not only is the water sweet, so that Jacob and his sons drank of it, but so abundant, that it satisfied the vast multitude of the Patriarchs’ cattle.
Chrysostomus: Vide autem qualiter seipsam impulit in nobilitatem Iudaicam. Samaritani enim Abraham progenitorem suum dicebant, quasi a Chaldaea existentem; sed et Iacob patrem vocabant, quasi ipsius existentem nepotem. CHRYS See how she thrusts herself upon the Jewish stock. The Samaritans claimed Abraham as their ancestor, on the ground of his having come from Chaldea; and called Jacob their father, as being Abraham’s grandson.
Beda: Vel patrem suum Iacob vocat, quia ipsa sub lege Moysi vixerat, et praedium quod Iacob filio suo Ioseph dederat possidebat. BEDE. Or she calls Jacob their father, because she lived under the Mosaic law, and possessed the farm which Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
Origenes in Ioannem: Mystice autem fons Iacob Scripturae sunt; siquidem instructi in Scripturis bibunt ut Iacob et filii eius; simplices autem et rudes bibunt more pecorum Iacob. ORIGEN. In the mystical sense, Jacob’s well is the Scriptures. The learned then drink like Jacob and his sons; the simple and uneducated, like Jacob’s cattle.

Lectio 3
13 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, πᾶς ὁ πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου διψήσει πάλιν: 14 ὃς δ' ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 15 λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή, κύριε, δός μοι τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ, ἵνα μὴ διψῶ μηδὲ διέρχωμαι ἐνθάδε ἀντλεῖν. 16 λέγει αὐτῇ, ὕπαγε φώνησον τὸν ἄνδρα σου καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε. 17 ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἔχω ἄνδρα. λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι ἄνδρα οὐκ ἔχω: 18 πέντε γὰρ ἄνδρας ἔσχες, καὶ νῦν ὃν ἔχεις οὐκ ἔστιν σου ἀνήρ: τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας.
13. Jesus answered and said to her, Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again: 14. But whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 15. The woman says to him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. 16. Jesus says to her, Go, call your husband and come hither. 17. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband: 18. For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband: in that said you truly.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Cum mulier quaesivisset numquid maior es patre nostro Iacob? Non dixit: maior sum, ne videretur gloriari; sed per ea quae subdit, hoc ostendit; sequitur enim respondit Iesus, et dixit ei: omnis qui biberit ex aqua hac, sitiet iterum; qui autem biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ei, non sitiet in aeternum; quasi dicat: si mirabilis fuit Iacob, quia hanc aquam dedit; si dabo tibi multo hac potiorem, quid dices? Non autem ab accusatione, sed ex supereminentia comparationem facit: non enim dicit quoniam haec aqua vilis est et contemptibilis; sed id quod natura testatur, hoc ponit, scilicet omnis qui bibit ex aqua hac, sitiet iterum. CHRYS. To the woman’s question, Are you greater than our father Jacob? He does not reply, I am greater, lest He should seem to boast; but His answer implies it; Jesus answered and said to her, Whosoever drink of this water shall thirst again: but whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; as if He said, If Jacob is to be honored because he gave you this water. what will you say, if I give you far better than this? He makes the comparison however not to depreciate Jacob, but to exalt Himself. For He does not say, that this water is vile and counterfeit, but asserts a simple fact of nature, viz. that whosoever drink of this water shall thirst again.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quod quidem verum est et de aqua sensibili, et de ea quam significat illa aqua: etenim aqua in puteo voluptas est saeculi in profunditate tenebrosa: hic eam hauriunt homines hydria cupiditatum: nam qui non praemiserit cupiditatem, pervenire non potest ad voluptatem. Cum pervenerit quisque ad voluptatem saeculi huius, numquid non iterum sitiet? Ergo de hac aqua qui biberit, sitiet iterum. Si autem acceperit a me aquam, non sitiet in aeternum: nam quomodo sitient qui inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus Dei? Promittebat ergo venam quamdam in satietatem spiritus sancti. AUG. Which is true indeed both of material water, and of that of which it is the type. For the water in the well is the pleasure of the world, that abode of darkness. Men draw it with the waterpot of their lusts; pleasure is not relished, except it be preceded by lust. And when a man has enjoyed this pleasure, i.e. drunk of the water, he thirsts again; but if he have received water from Me, he shall never thirst. For how shall they thirst, who are drunken with the abundance of the house of God? But He promised this fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Chrysostomus: Hanc autem excellentiam huius aquae, ut scilicet qui ex ea biberit, non sitiat in aeternum, per ea quae consequuntur ostendit; sequitur enim sed aqua quam ego dabo ei, fiet in eo fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam; quasi dicat: sicut qui fontem habet intra se positum, nequaquam afficietur siti; ita et qui hanc aquam habet, scilicet quam ego ei dabo. CHRYS. The excellence of this water; viz. that he that drinks of it never thirsts, He explains in what follows, But the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. As a man who had a spring within him, would never feel thirst, so will not he who has this water which I shall give him.
Theophylactus: Nam aqua quam ego tribuo, semper multiplicatur: semina enim et principium boni, sancti sumunt per gratiam; ipsi vero negotiantur et operantur ad eius augmentum. THEOPHYL. For the water which I give him is ever multiplying. The saints receive through grace the seed and principle of good; but they themselves make it grow by their own cultivation.
Chrysostomus: Vide autem qualiter mulier paulatim ad dogmatum altitudinem ducitur: nam primum quidem aestimavit eum iniquum quemdam esse Iudaeum: deinde audiens aquam vivam, suspicata est de sensibili hoc dici: postea discens quoniam spiritualia erant quae dicebantur, credidit quidem quoniam potest aqua sitis necessitatem tollere; nondum autem sciebat quae esset haec aqua, sed quaerebat eam, superiorem sensibilibus aestimans; unde subditur dicit ad eum mulier: domine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut non sitiam neque veniam huc haurire. Et sic eum patriarchae Iacob praeponit, de quo tam magnam opinionem habebat. CHRYS. See how the woman is led by degrees to the highest doctrine. First, she thought He was some lax Jew. Then hearing of the living water, she thought it meant material water. Afterwards she understands it as spoken spiritually, and believes that it can take away thirst, but she does not yet know what it is, only understands that it was superior to material things: The woman says to Him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not neither come hither to draw. Observe, she prefers Him to the patriarch Jacob, for whom she ha such veneration.
Augustinus: Vel aliter. Adhuc illa mulier carnem sapit: delectata est non sitire, et putabat hoc secundum carnem sibi promissum esse a domino. Dederat autem Deus aliquando servo suo Eliae ut per dies quadraginta nec esuriret, nec sitiret: qui hoc potuit dare per quadraginta dies, non poterat dare semper? Delectata autem tali munere rogat ut ei aquam vivam daret; unde sequitur dicit ad eum mulier: domine, da mihi hanc aquam, ut non sitiam, neque veniam huc haurire. Ad laborem enim indigentia cogebat, et laborem infirmitas recusabat: utinam audiret: venite ad me, omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego vos reficiam. Hoc enim dicebat Iesus, ut iam non laboraret; sed illa nondum intelligebat. Denique voluit dominus ut intelligeret; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: vade, voca virum tuum, et veni huc. Quid est hoc? Per virum suum ei volebat aquam illam dare. An quia non intelligebat, per virum suum eam volebat docere? Forte sicut apostolus dicit de mulieribus: si quae volunt discere, domi viros suos interrogent. Sed ibi dicitur, ubi non est Iesus qui doceat; cum vero ipse dominus aderat, quid opus erat ut per virum ei loqueretur? Numquid per virum loquebatur Mariae, quae sedit ad pedes eius? AUG. Or thus; The woman as yet understands Him of the flesh only. She is delighted to be relieved for ever from thirst, and takes this promise of our Lord’s in a carnal sense. For God had once granted to His servant Elijah, that he should neither hunger nor thirst for forty days; and if He could grant this for forty days, why not for ever? Eager to possess such a gift, she asks Him for the living water; The woman says to Him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw. Her poverty obliged her to labor more than her strength could well bear; would in that she could hear, Come to Me, all that labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Jesus had said this very thing, i.e. that she need not labor any longer; but she did not understand Him. At last our Lord was resolved that she should understand: Jesus says to her, Go call your husband, and come hither. What means this? Did He wish to give her the water through her husband? Or, because she did not understand, did He wish to teach her by means of her husband? The Apostle indeed says of women, If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. But this applies only where Jesus is not present. Our Lord Himself was present here; what need then that He should speak to her through her husband? Was it through her husband that He spoke to Mary, who sat at His feet?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia igitur instabat mulier, accipere aquam promissam quaerens, dicit ei Iesus: voca virum tuum: quasi ostendens quoniam et illum oportet his communicare. Haec autem festinans accipere, et rei turpitudinem occultans, adhuc aestimabat se ad hominem loqui; unde sequitur respondit mulier, et dixit: non habeo virum. Hoc audiens Christus opportune de reliquo redargutionem inducit; nam et priores viros enumerat, et eum qui nunc occultabatur redarguit; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: bene dixisti, quia non habeo virum. CHRYS. The woman then being, urgent in asking for the promised water, Jesus says to her, Go call your husband; to show that he too ought to have a share in these things. But she was in a hurry to receive the gift, and wished to conceal her guilt, (for she still imagined she was speaking to a man) The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Christ answers her with a seasonable reproof; exposing her as to former husbands, and as to her present one, whom she had concealed; Jesus said to her, you have well said, I have no husband.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Intelligas, revera istam mulierem non habuisse tunc virum; sed utebatur nescio quo non legitimo viro; unde ei convenienter mysteria loquitur, dicens quinque viros habuisti. AUG. Understand, that the woman had not a lawful husband, but had formed an irregular connection with some one. He tells her, you have had five husbands, in order to show her His miraculous knowledge.
Origenes in Ioannem: Vide autem si possibile est fontem Iacob mystice totas esse Scripturas, aquam vero Iesu ea pro quibus editae sunt; quae non est licitum omnibus perscrutari; eo quod quae scripta sunt dictaverunt homines; quae vero oculus non vidit, nec auris audivit, nec in cor hominis ascenderunt, in scriptis non possunt redigi; sed ex fonte aquae salientis in vitam aeternam, idest ex spiritu sancto, disciplinae patefiunt his qui nondum humanum cor gestant, sed possunt dicere: nos sensum Christi habemus. Qui ergo non suscipit profunditatem verborum, etsi ad modicum quieverit, denuo insistens dubitavit; qui autem bibit de aqua Christi, ad hoc promovetur ut fons omnium quaesitorum prorumpat in eo, sursum scaturizantibus aquis, et pervolante eius mente ad consequentiam huius aquae, ad vitam aeternam. Volebat autem mulier sine aqua Iacob, angelicam et super hominem discere veritatem: neque enim Angeli indigent fonte Iacob ut bibant; sed quilibet in se habet fontem aquae scaturientis in vitam aeternam ab ipso verbo; et hoc est quod subditur dicit ei mulier: domine, da mihi hanc aquam. Sed impossibile est hic absque ea quae hauritur ex fonte Iacob aquam capere quae datur a verbo: unde petenti Samaritanae aquam videtur dicere Iesus, se illam praebere non alibi quam in fonte Iacob; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: vade, voca virum tuum, et veni huc. Si enim sitiamus, idoneum est primo pocula sumere ex fonte Iacob; secundum autem apostolum, vir animae lex est. ORIGEN. May not Jacob’s well signify mystically the letter of Scripture; the water of Jesus, that which is above the letter, which all are not allowed to penetrate into? That which is written was dictated by men, whereas the things which the eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, cannot be reduced to writing, but are from the fountain of water, that springs up unto everlasting life, i.e. the Holy Ghost. These truths are unfolded to such as carrying no longer a human heart within them, are able to say with the Apostle, We have the mind of Christ. Human wisdom indeed discovers truths, which are handed down to posterity; but the teaching of the Spirit is a well of water which springs up into everlasting life. The woman wished to attain, like the angels, to angelic and super-human truth without the use of Jacob’s water. For the angels have a well of water within them, springing from the Word of God Himself. She says therefore, Sir, give me this water. But it is impossible here to have the water which is given by the Word, without that which is drawn from Jacob’s well; and therefore Jesus seems to tell the woman that He cannot supply her with it from any other source than Jacob’s well; If we are thirsty, we must first drink from Jacob’s well. Jesus says to her, Go, call your husband, and come hither. According to the Apostle, the Law is the husband of the soul.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Quinque autem viros, quinque libros qui per Moysen ministrati sunt, nonnulli accipiunt. Quod autem dictum est et hunc quem habes, non est tuus vir, de seipso dominum dixisse intelligunt, ut iste sit sensus: primo quinque libris Moysi quasi quinque viris servisti: nunc autem quem habes, idest quem audis, non est tuus vir, quia nondum in eum credidisti. Sed quoniam non credens Christo, adhuc illorum quinque virorum, idest quinque librorum, copulatione tenebatur, potest movere quomodo dici potuerit quinque viros habuisti, quasi nunc eos iam non haberet. Deinde quomodo potest intelligi a quinque illis libris recedere hominem ut ad Christum transeat, cum ille qui credit in Christum, non relinquendos illos quinque libros, sed spiritualiter intelligendos multo avidius amplectatur? Est ergo alius intellectus. AUG. The five husbands some interpret to be the five books which were given by Moses. And the words, He whom thou now have is not your husband, they understand as spoken by our Lord of Himself; as if He said, You have served the five books of Moses, as five husbands; but now he whom you have, i.e. whom you hear, is not your husband; for you do not yet believe in him. But if she did not believe in Christ, she was still united to those five husbands, i.e. five books, and therefore why is it said, you have had five husbands, as if she no longer had them? And how do we understand that a man must have these five books, in order to pass over to Christ, when he who believes in Christ, so far from forsaking these books, embraces them in this spiritual meaning the more strongly? Let us turn to another interpretation.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Videns enim Iesus quia mulier non intelligebat, et volens eam intelligere, voca, inquit, virum tuum; idest, praesenta intellectum tuum: cum enim ordinata fuerit vita, intellectus animam regit, ad ipsam animam pertinens: non enim aliud aliquid quid est, quam anima, sed aliquid animae est intellectus. Hoc ipsum animae quod intellectus et mens dicitur, illuminatur luce superiore. Talis lux cum muliere loquebatur, et in illa intellectus non aderat: ergo dominus, tamquam diceret: illustrare volo, et non adest quem; voca, inquit, virum tuum; idest, adhibe intellectum, per quem docearis quo regaris: et adhuc illa nondum vocato illo viro, non intelligit. Videtur autem mihi quinque viros priores animae nos posse accipere quinque sensus corporis: ante enim quam quisque possit uti ratione, non regitur nisi sensibus carnis; sed cum coeperit anima capax esse rationis, aut a sapiente mente regitur, aut ab errore; sed error non regit, sed perdit. Post illos ergo quinque sensus mulier illa adhuc errabat: error ille non erat legitimus vir, sed adulter. Dicit ergo dominus: tolle istum adulterum, qui te corrumpit, et voca virum tuum, ut intelligas me. AUG. Jesus seeing that the woman did not understand, and wishing to enlighten her, says, Call your husband; i.e. apply your understanding. For when the life is well ordered, the understanding governs the soul itself, pertaining to the soul. For though it is indeed nothing else than the soul, it is at the same time a certain part of the soul. And this very part of the soul which is called the understanding and the intellect, is itself illuminated by a light superior to itself. Such a Light was talking with the woman; but in her there was not understanding to be enlightened. Our Lord then, as it were, says, I wish to enlighten, and there is not one to be enlightened; Call your husband, i. e. apply your understanding, through which you must be taught, by which governed. The five former husbands may be explained as the five senses, thus: a man before he has the use of his reason, is entirely under the government of his bodily senses. Then reason comes into action; and from that time forward he is capable of entertaining ideas, and is either under the influence of truth or error. The woman had been under the influence of error, which error was not her lawful husband, but an adulterer. Wherefore our Lord says, Put away that adulterer which corrupts thee, and call your husband, that you may understand Me.
Origenes in Ioannem: Ubi autem decebat confutari a Iesu putatum Samaritanae virum, non esse virum, nisi apud fontem Iacob? Potest etiam intelligi, si vir animae lex est, quod Samaritana secundum congruam acceptionem verborum legis, ritui infidelium tamquam viro illegitimo se subiciebat. Revocatur autem ad verbum veritatis, quod resurrecturum erat a mortuis, non deinceps moriturum. ORIGEN. And what more proper place than Jacob’s well, for exposing the unlawful husband, i.e. the perverse law? For the Samaritan woman is meant to figure to us a soul, that has subjected itself to a kind of law of its own, not the divine lay. And our Savior wishes to marry her to a lawful husband, i.e. Himself; the Word of truth which was to rise from the dead, and never again to die.

Lectio 4
19 λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή, κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ. 20 οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν: καὶ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος ὅπου προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. 21 λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πίστευέ μοι, γύναι, ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα ὅτε οὔτε ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ οὔτε ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις προσκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί. 22 ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε: ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν. 23 ἀλλὰ ἔρχεται ὥρα, καὶ νῦν ἐστιν, ὅτε οἱ ἀληθινοὶ προσκυνηταὶ προσκυνήσουσιν τῷ πατρὶ ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ: καὶ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν. 24 πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν.
19. The woman said to him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21. Jesus saith to her, Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22. You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23. But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him. 24. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Mulier autem a Christo reprehensa, non contristata est, neque dimittens fugit; sed admiratur magis, et immoratur; unde dicitur dicit ei mulier: domine, video quia propheta es tu; quasi dicat: in hoc quod mihi occulta dicis, ostenderis propheta esse. CHRYS. The woman is not offended at Christ’s rebuke. She does not leave Him, and go away. Far from it: her admiration for Him is raised: The woman said to Him, Sir, I perceive that you are a Prophet: as if she said, Your knowledge of me is unaccountable, you must be a prophet.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Etsi coepit ad eam venire vir, nondum plene venit: prophetam dominum putabat. Erat quidem et propheta: nam de seipso ait: non est propheta sine honore nisi in patria sua. AUG. The husband was beginning to come to her, though He had not yet fully come. She thought our Lord a prophet, and He was a prophet: for He says of Himself, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.
Chrysostomus: Deinde quia hoc suspicata est, nihil mundanum eum interrogavit: non de corporis sanitate, non de vitiis; non molestatur sitiendo, pro doctrina sollicita. CHRYS. And having come to this belief she asks no questions relating to this life, the health or sickness of the body: she is not troubled about thirst, she is eager for doctrine.
Augustinus: Et incipit quaerere quod illam solet movere, dicens patres nostri in hoc monte adoraverunt; et vos dicitis, quia Hierosolymis est locus ubi adorare oportet. Contentio quippe fuerat inter Samaritanos et Iudaeos: quia Iudaei in templo a Salomone fabricato adorabant Deum, et ideo meliores se esse iactabant; quibus Samaritani dicebant: quomodo iactatis vos quia templum habetis quod nos non habemus? Numquid patres nostri, qui Deo placuerunt, in illo templo adoraverunt? Melius ergo nos in hoc monte Deum rogamus, ubi patres nostri Deum adoraverunt. AUG. And she begins inquiries on a subject that perplexed her; Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. This was a great dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews. The Jews worshipped in the temple built by Solomon, and made this a ground of boasting over the Samaritans. The Samaritans replied, Why boast you, because you have a temple which we have not? Did our fathers, who pleased God, worship in that temple? Is it not better to pray to God in this mountain, where our fathers worshipped?
Chrysostomus: Quod autem dicit patres nostri, eos qui circa Abraham sunt intelligit: etenim illic aiunt filium suum obtulisse. CHRYS. By, our fathers, she means Abraham, who is said to have offered up Isaac here.
Origenes in Ioannem: Vel Samaritani montem, qui dicitur Garizim, iuxta quem Iacob habitavit, sanctum reputantes, in eo Deum adorant; sed Iudaei montem Sion sacrum quid arbitrantes, illum locum putant esse electum a Deo. Verum, quia Iudaei, a quibus salus processit, exemplum sunt opinantium sanos sermones, Samaritani vero diversimode opinantium; congrue Garizim quidem Samaritani significant, quod vocatur distinctio, seu divisio; at Iudaei Sion, quod est specula. ORIGEN. Or thus; The Samaritans regarded Mount Gerizim, near which Jacob dwelt, as sacred, and worshipped upon it; while the sacred place of the Jews was Mount Sion, God’s own choice. The Jews being the people from whom salvation came, are the type of true believers; the Samaritans of heretics. Gerizim, which signifies division, becomes the Samaritans; Sion, which signifies watch-tower, becomes the Jews.
Chrysostomus: Christus autem non solvit quaestionem confestim, sed ad altiora mulierem trahit; de quibus non prius ei locutus est, donec confessa est quoniam propheta est, ut cum multa certitudine audiat de cetero quae dicuntur; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: mulier, crede mihi, quia venit hora quando neque in monte hoc, neque in Hierosolymis adorabitis patrem. Dicit autem crede mihi, quia ubique nobis opus est fide matre bonorum, quae salutis est medicamentum, sine qua nihil magnorum est possidere. Sed qui tentant, assimilantur his qui sine navi pelagus tentant transire: qui parum quidem natare sufficiunt, ultra vero procedentes cito merguntur. CHRYS. Christ however does not solve this question immediately, but leads the woman to higher things, of which He had not spoken till she acknowledged Him to be a prophet, and therefore listened with a more full belief: Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour comes, when you shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. He says, Believe me, because we have need of faith, the mother of all good, the medicine of salvation, in order to obtain any real good. They who endeavor without it, are like men who venture on the sea without a boat, and, being able to swim only a little way, are drowned.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Merito autem iam praesente viro audit mulier crede mihi. Iam enim est in te qui credat: coepisti adesse intellectu, sed nisi credideritis non intelligetis. AUG. Believe Me, our Lord says with fitness, as the husband is now present. For now there is one in thee that believes, you have begun to be present in the understanding, but if you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.
Alcuinus: Quod autem dicit venit hora, tempus evangelicae doctrinae quod iam instabat dicit, quando ablata omni umbra figurarum, veritas pura luce mentes credentium illustratura erat. ALCUIN. In saying, the hour comes, He refers to the Gospel dispensation, which was now approaching; under which the shadows of types were to withdraw, and the pure light of truth was to enlighten the minds of believers.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Supervacuum autem erat Christo docere propter quid patres in monte et Iudaei in Hierosolymis adorabant: ideo hoc tacuit; verumtamen reverentiores Iudaeos indicavit, non a loco, sed a cognitione; unde subdit vos adoratis quod nescitis, nos adoramus quod scimus, quia salus ex Iudaeis est. CHRYS. There was no necessity for Christ to show why the fathers worshipped in the mountain, and the Jews in Jerusalem. He therefore was silent on that question; but nevertheless asserted the religious superiority of the Jews on another ground, the ground not of place, but of knowledge; You worship you know not what, we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews.
Origenes in Ioannem: Quod dico vos quantum ad vocem, Samaritani, quantum ad anagogem, qui erga Scripturas alienae sunt opinionis. Nos quoque quo ad verbum Iudaei, quo ad allegoriam vero ego verbum, et qui vere secundum me formati sunt, obtinentes salutem ex dictis Iudaicis. ORIGEN. You, literally refers to the Samaritans, but mystically, to all who understand the Scriptures in an heretical sense. We again literally means the Jews, but mystically, I the Word, and all who conformed to My Image, obtain salvation from the Jewish Scriptures.
Chrysostomus: Samaritani quidem quod nesciebant adorabant, quoniam localem et particularem Deum aestimabant, nihil de eo plus imaginantes quam de idolis; et idcirco cultum Dei cum cultu Daemonum miscuerunt: Iudaei vero ab hac eruti erant suspicione: etenim orbis terrarum eum noverant esse Deum; propterea dixit nos adoramus quod scimus. Iudaeis autem seipsum connumerat secundum opinionem mulieris, loquens quasi propheta Iudaeus existens: ideo dixit adoramus; cum tamen manifestum sit quod ipse est qui ab omnibus adoratur. Per hoc autem quod dicit quia salus ex Iudaeis est, nihil aliud ostendit quam quod orbi terrarum inde salutaria facta sunt. Scire enim Deum et idola detestari, illinc principium habuit et omnia alia dogmata; sed ipsum quod est apud nos, a Iudaeis orationis principium habuit. Praesentiam etiam suam salutem vocat: quam dicit ex Iudaeis esse, secundum illud apostoli: ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem. Vide qualiter applaudit veteri testamento, quod radicem ostendit bonorum, per omnia semetipsum non esse contrarium legi demonstrans. CHRYS. The Samaritans worshipped they knew not what, a local, a partial God, as they imagined, of whom they had the same notion that they had of their idols. And therefore they mingled the worship of God with the worship of idols. But the Jews were free from this superstition: indeed they knew God to be the God of the whole world; wherefore He says, We worship what we know. He reckons Himself among the Jews, in condescension to the woman’s idea of Him; and says as if He were a Jewish prophet, We worship, though it is certain that He is the Being who is worshipped by all. The words, For salvation is of the Jews, mean that every thing calculated to save and amend the world, the knowledge of God, the abhorrence of idols, and all other doctrines of that nature, and even the very origin of our religion, comes originally from the Jews. In salvation too He includes His own presence, which He says is of the Jews, as we are told by the Apostle, Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. See how He exalts the Old Testament, which He shows to be the root of every thing good; thus proving in every way that He Himself is not opposed to the Law.
Augustinus: Multum igitur dedit Iudaeis, ex quorum persona dixerat nos adoramus quod scimus; sed non ex persona Iudaeorum reproborum, sed ex qualibus fuerant apostoli, quales fuerant prophetae, quales fuerant omnes illi sancti qui pretia rerum suarum ad pedes apostolorum posuerunt. AUG. It is saying much for the Jews, to declare in their name, We worship what we know. But He does not spear; for the reprobate Jews, but for that party from whom the Apostles and the Prophets came. Such were all those saints who laid the prices of their possessions at the Apostle’s feet.
Chrysostomus: Sic igitur superabundantius vobis habent Iudaei, o mulier, in modo adorationis; verumtamen et hic adorationis modus de reliquo finem habebit; unde subdit sed venit hora, et nunc est, quando veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et veritate. Quia enim prophetae ante longa tempora multa praedixerunt, ideo dixit et nunc est: ne aestimes hanc talem esse prophetiam quae post multum temporis impleatur: res iam instat et in ianuis est. Dixit autem veri adoratores, ad distinctionem falsorum: quoniam quidam sunt falsi adoratores, qui temporalia et caduca quaerunt in oratione; sive qui contra hoc quod orant, agere non cessant. CHRYS. The Jewish worship then was far higher than the Samaritan; but even it shall be abolished; The hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. He says, and now is, to show that this was not a prediction, like those of the ancient Prophets, to be fulfilled the course of ages. The event, He says, is now at hand, it is approaching your very doors. The words, true worshipers, are by way of distinction: for there are false worshipers, who pray for temporal and frail benefits, or whose actions are ever contradicting their prayers.
Chrysostomus: Vel dicens veros, excludit cum Samaritanis Iudaeos. Etsi enim Iudaei illis meliores essent, tamen futuris multo minores sunt, tamquam figura veritate. Sunt igitur veri adoratores qui neque loco circumcludunt Dei culturam, et Deum in spiritu colunt; unde et Paulus dicit: cui servio in spiritu meo. CHRYS. Or by saying, true, he excludes the Jews together with the Samaritans. For the Jews, though better than the Samaritans, were yet as much inferior to those who were to succeed them, as the type is to the reality. The true worshipers do not confine the worship of God to place, but worship in the spirit; as Paul said, Whom I serve with my spirit.
Origenes: Bis autem scribitur venit hora; et primo quidem non adest et nunc est; in secundo vero dicitur et nunc est. Et puto primum quidem notare adorationem praeter corpus futuram in perfectione; secundum vero eam quae fit in vita praesenti, perfecta quantum licet humanam procedere naturam. Cum ergo venerit hora quam dicit dominus, evitandus est mons Samaritanorum, et in Sion, ubi est Hierosolyma, adorandus est Deus, quae civitas esse dicitur a Christo celsi principis: et haec est Ecclesia, ubi sacra oblatio, spirituales victimae divinis aspectibus offeruntur ab his qui legem spiritualem intellexerunt. Cum autem venerit temporis complementum, tunc nequaquam pensandum verum cultum Hierosolymis, idest in praesenti Ecclesia, amplius pertractari: neque enim Angeli apud Hierosolymam colunt patrem; sic et qui similitudinem nacti sunt Iudaeorum, melius quam hi qui sunt Hierosolymis, colunt patrem. Cum autem haec hora evenerit, patri aliquis in filium deputatur. Ea propter non dictum est: adorabitis Deum, sed adorabitis patrem. Sed in praesenti colunt patrem in spiritu et veritate veri adoratores. ORIGEN. Twice it is said, The hour comes, and the first time without the addition, and now is. The first seems to allude to that purely spiritual worship which is suited only to a state of perfection; the second to earthly worship, perfected as far as is consistent with human nature. When that hour comes, which our Lord speaks of, the mountain of the Samaritans must be avoided, and God must be worshipped in Sion, where is Jerusalem, which is called by Christ the city of the Great King. And this is the Church, where sacred oblations and spiritual victims are offered up by those who understand the spiritual law. So that when the fullness of time shall have come, the true worship, we must suppose, will no longer be attached to Jerusalem, i.e. to the present Church: for the Angels do not worship the Father at Jerusalem: and thus those who have obtained the likeness of the Jews, worship the Father better than they who are at Jerusalem. And when this hour is come, we shall be accounted by the Father as sons. Wherefore it is not said, Worship God, but, Worship the Father. But for the present the true worshipers worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Dicit ergo hoc de Ecclesia, in qua est vera adoratio et Deo congrua; unde subdit nam et pater tales quaerit qui adorent eum. Et si olim volebat eos veteribus immorari, concessit eis figuram: hoc tamen fecit eis condescendens, ut per hoc ad veritatem inducantur. CHRYS. He speaks here of the Church; wherein there is true worship, and such as becomes God; and therefore adds, For the Father seeks such to worship Him. For though formerly He willed that mankind should linger under a dispensation of types and figures, this was only done in condescension to human frailty, and to prepare men for the reception of the truth.
Origenes in Ioannem: Si autem pater quaerit, per Iesum quaerit, qui venit quaerere et salvare quod perierat: quos erudiens veros cultores efficit. Quod autem subditur spiritus est Deus, inde abstractum esse suspicor quod ad vitam veram nos perducit: nam et corporali vita vivificamur a spiritu. ORIGEN. But if the Father seeks, He seeks through Jesus, Who came to seek and to save that which was lost, and to teach men what true worship was. God is a Spirit; i.e. He constitutes our real life, just as our breath (spirit) constitutes our bodily life.
Chrysostomus: Vel indicat quod Deus incorporeus est. Oportet igitur et incorpoream eius culturam esse, hoc est per animam: et intellectus puritatem nos ei offerre; unde subdit et eos qui adorant eum, in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare. Quia enim Iudaei animam quidem negligebant, multum autem circa corpus studium faciebant, id omnifariam purgantes; ideo ait, quia non corporis mundatione, sed incorporeo quod est in nobis, hoc est intellectu, quem dicit spiritum, Deus incorporeus colitur. CHRYS. Or it signifies that God is incorporeal; and that therefore He ought to be worshipped not with the body, but with the soul, by the offering up a pure mind, i.e. that they who worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth. The Jews neglected the soul, but paid great attention to the body, and had various kinds of purification. Our Lord seems here to refer to this, and to say, not by cleansing of the body, but by the incorporeal nature within us, i. e. the understanding, which He calls the spirit, that we must worship the incorporeal God.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel cum in spiritu Deum spiritum docuit adorandum, et libertatem ac scientiam adorantium et adorandi infinitatem ostendit, secundum illud apostoli: ubi spiritus domini, ibi libertas. HILARY. Or, by saying that God being a Spirit ought to be worshipped in spirit, He indicates the freedom and knowledge of the worshipers, and the uncircumscribed nature of the worship: according to the saying of the Apostle, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Chrysostomus: In veritate autem oportet adorare: quia priora figura erant, scilicet circumcisio, holocausta et thymiamata; nunc autem totum est veritas. CHRYS. And that we are to worship in truth, means that whereas the former ordinances were typical; that is to say, circumcision, burnt offerings, and sacrifices; now, on the contrary, every thing is real.
Theophylactus: Vel quia multi putant se Deum secundum spiritum, idest animam, adorare, non rectam opinionem de eo habentes, ut haeretici: propter hoc addidit et veritate. Forte etiam dicet aliquis, quia duas partes philosophiae, quae secundum nos sunt, insinuat in praedictis, actionem scilicet et contemplationem: per spiritum namque activum insinuat, secundum apostolum: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei; per veritatem vero contemplativum. Vel aliter. Samaritanorum erat opinio quod Deus loco concluderetur, et quia in hoc loco Deum adorari oporteat: contra quos dicit, quia veri adoratores non localiter, sed spiritualiter adorant. Iudaeis vero omnia sub figura et umbra erant; et ideo dicit, quia veri adoratores non in figura adorabunt, sed in veritate: quia enim Deus spiritus est, spirituales adoratores quaerit: quia vero veritas, veros. THEOPHYL. Or, because many think that they worship God in the spirit, i.e. with the mind, who yet held heretical doctrines concerning Him, for this reason He adds, and in truth. May not the words too refer to the two kinds of philosophy among us, i. e. active and contemplative; the spirit standing for action, according to the Apostle, As many as are led by the Spirit of God; truth, on the other hand, for contemplation. Or, (to take another view,) as the Samaritans thought that God w as confined to a certain place, and ought to be worshipped in that place; in opposition to this notion, our Lord may mean to teach them here, that the true worshipers worship not locally, but spiritually. Or again, all being a type and shadow in the Jewish system, the meaning may be that the true worshipers will worship not in type, but in truth. God being a Spirit, seeks for spiritual worshipers; being the truth, for true ones.
Augustinus: Quaerebas montem forte ad orandum, ut Deo esses propinquior; sed ipse qui in altis habitat, humilibus appropinquat: ergo descende, ut ascendas. Ascensiones in corde eius in convalle plorationis, quae humilitatem habet. In templo vis orare? In te ora; sed prius esto templum Dei. AUG. O for a mountain to pray on, you cry, high and inaccessible, that I may be nearer to God, and God may hear me better, for He dwells on high. Yes, God dwells on high, but He has respect to the humble. Wherefore descend that you may ascend. “Ways on high are in their heart,” it is said, “passing in the valley of tears,” and in “tears” is humility. Would you pray in the temple? pray in yourself; but first do you become the temple of God.

Lectio 5
25 λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή, οἶδα ὅτι μεσσίας ἔρχεται, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός: ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα. 26 λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι.
25. The woman said to him, I know that Messias comes, which is called Christ; when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26. Jesus said to her, I that speak to you am he.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Mulier eorum quae dicta sunt, altitudine fatigata obstupuit; unde sequitur dicit ei mulier: scio quia Messias venit, qui dicitur Christus. CHRYS. The woman was struck with astonishment at the loftiness of His teaching, as her words show: The woman said to Him, I know that Messias comes, which is called Christ.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Unctus Latine, Graece Christus est, Hebraice Messias est. Sciebat ergo quis eam posset docere; sed iam docentem nondum agnoscebat; unde subdit cum ergo venerit ille, nobis annuntiabit omnia; quasi dicat: modo Iudaei de templo contendunt, nos de monte: cum ergo ille venerit, et montem spernet, et templum evertet, et docebit nos, ut in spiritu et veritate noverimus adorare. AUG. Unctus in Latin, Christ in Greek, in the Hebrew Messias. She knew then who could teach her, but did not know Who was teaching her. When He is come, He will tell us all things: as if she said, The Jews now contend for the temple, we for the mountain; but He, when He comes, will level the mountain, overthrow the temple, and teach us how to pray in spirit and in truth.
Chrysostomus: Sed unde erat Samaritanis expectare Christi adventum? Moysi quidem suscipientes legem, ab ipsis Moysi litteris hoc noverant: Iacob enim de Christo prophetizans dixit: non deficiet princeps de Iuda, nec dux de femore eius, donec veniat qui mittendus est. Sed et Moyses dicit: prophetam vobis suscitabit Deus de fratribus vestris. CHRYS. But what reason had the Samaritans for expecting Christ’s coming? They acknowledged the books of Moses, which foretold it. Jacob prophesies of Christ, The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from beneath his feet, until Shiloh come. And Moses says, The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brethren.
Origenes in Ioannem: Siquidem non est ignorandum, quod sicut ex Iudaeis surrexit Iesus, Christum se esse non solum dicens, sed ostendens; sic ex Samaritanis quidam Dositheus nomine, asserebat se fore Christum qui praedicabatur. ORIGEN. It should be known, that as Christ rose out of the Jews, not only declaring but proving Himself to be Christ; so among the Samaritans there arose one Dositheus by name, who asserted that he was the Christ prophesied of.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Fortasse autem ut intelligentibus indicaret quinque corporis sensus, quinque virorum nomine significari, post quinque carnales responsiones, quae supra in littera patent, sexta responsione nominat Christum. AUG. It is a confirmation to discerning minds that the five senses were what were signified by the five husbands, to find the woman making five carnal answers, and then mentioning the name of Christ.
Chrysostomus: Christus autem de reliquo mulieri revelat seipsum; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: ego sum qui loquor tecum. Et quidem si circa principium hoc mulieri dixisset, videretur ei ex vanitate loqui; nunc autem paulatim in memoriam Christi eam reducens, opportune revelavit seipsum. Et quidem Iudaeis quaerentibus: si tu es Christus, dic nobis palam, non manifeste seipsum revelavit: quia non pro discendo quaerebant, sed pro iniuriando; haec vero ex simplici mente loquebatur. CHRYS. Christ now reveals Himself to the woman: Jesus said to her, I that speak to you am He. Had He told the woman this to begin with, it would have appeared vanity. Now, having gradually awakened her to the thought of Christ, His disclosure of Himself is perfectly opportune. He is not equally open to the Jews, who ask Him, If You be the Christ, tell us plainly; for this reason, that they did not ask in order to learn, but to do Him injury; whereas she spoke in the simplicity of her heart.

Lectio 6
27 καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει: οὐδεὶς μέντοι εἶπεν, τί ζητεῖς; ἤ, τί λαλεῖς μετ' αὐτῆς;     28 ἀφῆκεν οὖν τὴν ὑδρίαν αὐτῆς ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις,     29 δεῦτε ἴδετε ἄνθρωπον ὃς εἶπέν μοι πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησα: μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός; 30 ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτόν.
27. And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seek you? or, Why talk you with her? 28. The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and said to the men, 29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? 30. Then they went out of the city, and came to him.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Expleta doctrina, et convenienter ad tempus, discipuli occurrerunt; unde dicitur et continuo venerunt discipuli eius, et mirabantur, quia cum muliere loquebatur. Admirabantur quidem superabundantem Christi mansuetudinem et humilitatem, quoniam ita perspicuus existens, sustinuit loqui cum tanta humilitate mulieri inopi et Samaritanae. CHRYS. The disciples arrive opportunely, and when the teaching is finished: And upon this came His disciples, and marveled that He talked with the woman. They marveled at the exceeding kindness and humility of Christ, in condescending to converse with a poor woman, and a Samaritan.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quia scilicet quaerebat perditam qui venerat quaerere quod perierat, hoc illi mirabantur: bonum enim mirabantur, et non malum suspicabantur. AUG. He who came to seek that which was lost, sought the lost one. This was what they marveled at: they marveled at His goodness; they did not suspect evil.
Chrysostomus: Sed tamen admirantes non interrogaverunt causam; unde subditur nemo tamen dixit ei: quid quaeris, aut: quid loqueris cum ea? Erant eruditi discipulorum ordinem observare; at eum timebant et venerabantur. Et nimirum alibi videntur confidenter interrogare, quia ad eos pertinentia necesse habebant scrutari; hic autem nihil ad eos pertinebat quod fiebat. CHRYS. But notwithstanding their wonder, they asked Him no questions, No man said, What seek You? or, Why talk you with her? So careful were they to observe the rank of disciples, so great was their awe and veneration for Him. On subjects indeed which concerned themselves, they did not hesitate to ask Him questions. But this was not one.
Origenes in Ioannem: Et fere quidem quasi quodam apostolo ad cives utitur hac muliere, adeo eam inflammans per verba ut, amphora dimissa, iret in civitatem relatura concivibus; unde sequitur reliquit ergo mulier hydriam, non curans de corporeo ac viliori propter utilitatem plurium. Interest quoque nostra, omissis corporeis et neglectis, satagere ad impartiendum aliis de commodis acquisitis. ORIGEN. The woman is almost turned into an Apostle. So forcible are His words, that she leaves her waterpot to go to the city, and tell her townsmen of them. The woman then left her waterpot, i.e. gave up low bodily cares, for the sake of benefiting others. Let us do the same. Let us leave off caring for things of the body, and impart to others of our own.
Augustinus: Graeco nomine appellatur, tamquam si aquarium diceretur, quoniam Graece aqua hydor vocatur. AUG. Hydria answers to our word aquarium; hydor being Greek for water.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Et sicut apostoli vocati dimiserunt retia, ita haec dimittit hydriam, et Evangelistarum opus fecit; et non unum tantum vocat, sed civitatem integram; unde sequitur et abiit in civitatem, et dicit illis hominibus: venite, et videte hominem, qui dixit mihi omnia quaecumque feci. CHRYS. As the Apostles, on being called, left their nets, so does she leave her waterpot, to do the work of an Evangelist, by calling not one person, but a whole city: She went her way into the city, and said to the men, Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
Origenes: Convocat quidem illos ad videndum hominem continentem verbum supra hominem. Quaecumque autem fecit mulier, erat contubernium quinque coniugum, et post illos conversatio cum sexto non proprio viro; quem deserens et septimo adhaerens, lagenam dereliquit iam pudica. ORIGEN. She calls them together to see a man, whose words were deeper than man’s. She had had five husbands, and then was living with the sixth, not a lawful husband. But now she gives him up for a seventh, and she leaving her waterpot, is converted to chastity.
Chrysostomus: Non verecundata autem est hoc dicere. Anima enim cum ignita fuerit igne divino, ad nihil eorum quae sunt in terra, de reliquo inspicit, neque ad gloriam, nec ad verecundiam, sed ad unam solam, quae detinet eam, flammam. Volebat autem non ex propria Annuntiatione eos inducere, sed ex auditu proprio eos facere communicatores doctrinae Christi; unde dixit venite et videte hominem. Non dixit: venite et credite, sed venite et videte, quod levius erat. Noverat enim manifeste quoniam solum gustantes de illo fonte, eadem paterentur quae et ipsa. CHRYS. She was not prevented by shame-facedness from spreading about what had been said to her. For the soul, when it is once kindled by the divine flame, regards neither glory, nor shame, nor any other earthly thing, only the flame which consumes it. But she did not wish them to trust to her own report only, but to come and judge of Christ for themselves. Come, see a man, she says. She does not say, Come and believe, but, Come and see; which is an easier matter. For well she knew that if they only tasted of that well, they would feel as she did.
Alcuinus: Paulatim autem venit ad praedicandum Christum. Primo vocat hominem, ne si diceret Christum, auditores irascerentur et nollent exire. ALCUIN. It is only by degrees, however, that she comes to the preaching of Christ. First she calls Him a man, not Christ; for fear those who heard her might be angry, and refuse to come.
Chrysostomus: Unde etiam neque manifeste annuntiavit Christum, neque tamen totaliter siluit; sed dixit numquid ipse est Christus? Et ideo sermonem eius acceperunt; unde sequitur exierunt de civitate, et veniebant ad eum. CHRYS. She then neither openly preaches Christ, nor wholly omits Him, but says, Is not this the Christ? This wakened their attention, Then they went out of the city, and came to Him.
Augustinus Lib. 83 quaest: Quod autem relicta hydria discessit mulier, non negligenter praetereundum est: hydria enim amorem huius saeculi significat, idest cupiditatem qua homines de tenebrosa profunditate, cuius imaginem puteus gerit, hoc est de terrena conversatione, hauriunt voluptatem. Oportebat autem ut Christo credens, saeculo renuntiaret, et relicta hydria, cupiditatem saecularem se reliquisse demonstraret. AUG. The circumstance of the woman’s leaving her waterpot on going away, must not be overlooked. For the waterpot signifies the love of this world,) concupiscence, by which men from the dark depth, of which the well is the image, i.e. from an earthly conversation, draw up pleasure. It was right then for one who believed in Christ to renounce the world, and, by leaving her waterpot, to show that she had parted with worldly desires.
Augustinus: Proiecit ergo cupiditatem, et properavit annuntiare veritatem. Discant qui volunt evangelizare, ut prius hydriam ad puteum proiciant. AUG. She cast away therefore concupiscence, and hastened to proclaim the truth. Let those who wish to preach the Gospel, learn, that they should first leave their waterpots at the well.
Origenes: Facta etiam mulier receptaculum honestae disciplinae, ea quae primitus sapiebat, parvipendens deponit. ORIGEN. The woman having become a vessel of wholesome discipline, lays aside as contemptible her former tastes and desires.

Lectio 7
31 ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ ἠρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγοντες, ῥαββί, φάγε. 32 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ἐγὼ βρῶσιν ἔχω φαγεῖν ἣν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. 33 ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ μαθηταὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους, μή τις ἤνεγκεν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν; 34 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον.
31. In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. 32. But he said to them, I have meat to eat that you know not of. 33. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Has any man brought him ought to eat? 34. Jesus said to them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Ierant discipuli eius emere cibos, et venerant; quos Christo offerebant; unde dicitur interea rogabant eum discipuli eius dicentes: Rabbi, manduca. AUG. His disciples had gone to buy food, and had returned. They offered Christ some: In the mean while His disciples prayed Him, saying, Master, eat.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Videntes enim eum fatigatum ex itinere et aestu qui erat, rogabant eum vulgari eorum voce: neque enim erat hoc temeritatis, sed amoris cura circa magistrum. CHRYS. They all ask Him at once, Him so fatigued with the journey and heat. This is not impatience in them, but simply love, and tenderness to their Master.
Origenes in Ioannem: Arbitrantur aptum fore tempus ad prandium, quod erat inter recessum mulieris ad civitatem et adventum Samaritanorum ad ipsum: non enim coram aliquo advena sibi propinabant escas. Ob hoc bene positum est interea. ORIGEN. They think the pre sent time convenient for dining; it being after the departure of the woman to the city, and before the coming of the Samaritans; so that they sit at meat by themselves. This explains, In the mean while.
Theophylactus: Dominus vero sciens quod Samaritana totam civitatem ad eum traheret, hoc discipulis significavit; unde sequitur ille autem dixit eis: ego cibum habeo manducare quem vos nescitis. THEOPHYL. Our Lord, knowing that the woman of Samaria was bringing the whole town out to Him, tells His disciples, I have meat that you know not of:
Chrysostomus: Hominum salutem hic cibum vocavit, ostendens quantum desiderium habet nostrae salutis: sicut enim nobis concupiscibile est comedere, ita ei salvare nos. Tu vero intuere, quod non statim revelat, sed ubique in quaestionem immittit auditorem, ut incipiens quaerere quod dicitur et laborans, cum ampliori suscipiat desiderio. CHRYS. The salvation of men He calls His food, showing His great desire that we should be saved. As food is an object of desire to us, so was the salvation of men to Him. Observe, He does not express Himself directly, but figuratively; which makes some trouble necessary for His hearers, in order to comprehend His meaning, and thus gives a greater importance to that meaning when it is understood.
Theophylactus: Dicit autem quem vos nescitis; idest nescitis quod cibum voco salutem hominum; vel nescitis quia Samaritani credituri sunt, et salvi fient. Discipuli autem adhuc dubitabant; unde sequitur dicebant ergo discipuli ad invicem: numquid aliquis attulit ei manducare? THEOPHYL. That you know not of; i.e. know not that I call the salvation of men food; or, know not that the Samaritans are about to believe and be saved. The disciples however were in perplexity: Therefore said the disciples one to another, Has any man brought Him ought to eat?
Augustinus: Quid mirum si mulier illa non intelligebat aquam? Ecce discipuli non intelligunt escam. AUG. What wonder that the woman did not understand about the water? Lo, the disciples do not understand about the meat.
Chrysostomus: Et quidem assuetam reverentiam et honorem magistro praebent, ad se invicem quidem loquentes, ipsum vero non praesumentes interrogare. CHRYS. They show, as usual, the honor and reverence in which they hold their Master, by talking among themselves, and not presuming to question Him.
Theophylactus: In hoc autem quod dicunt discipuli numquid aliquis attulit ei manducare? Considerandum est, quod cibos ab aliis oblatos dominus suscipere solebat, non quod alieno ministerio indigeret qui dat escam omni carni, sed ut deferentes meritum consequerentur, simulque formam tradens non erubescere paupertatem, neque grave putare ab aliis nutriri: proprium enim et necessarium est doctoribus, alios habere procuratores ciborum, ut ipsi de nullo curantes, verbi ministrationem procurent sollicite. THEOPHYL. From the question of the disciples, Has any man brought Him ought to eat, we may infer that our Lord was accustomed to receive food from others, when it was offered Him: not that He who gives food to all flesh, needed any assistance; but He received it, that they who gave it might obtain their reward, and that poverty thenceforth might not blush, nor the support of others be esteemed a disgrace. It is proper and necessary that teachers should depend on others to provide them with food, in order that, being free from all other cares, they may attend the more to the ministry of the word.
Augustinus: Audivit autem dominus cogitationes discipulorum, et instruit eos ut magister, non per circuitum sicut mulierem, sed aperte; unde sequitur dicit eis Iesus: meus cibus est ut faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me. AUG. Our Lord heard His doubting disciples, and answered them as disciples, i.e. plainly and expressly, not circuitously, as He answered the women; Jesus said to them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.
Origenes in Ioannem: Idoneus cibus filio Dei, cum actor paternae voluntatis efficitur, hoc velle in semetipso protestans quod erat in patre. Solus autem filius perfecti operis paternae voluntatis est capax; ceteri vero sancti nil praeter divinam peragunt voluntatem. Plenam autem et integram facit Dei voluntatem qui dixit meus cibus est ut faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me; proprius enim cibus eius ostenditur. Quid autem sit velle patris, innuit sermo sequens ut perficiam opus eius. Siquidem simplicius quis asseret, quoniam opus est iussum mandantis; puta si dicant aedificantes vel fodientes se perficere opus eius qui conduxit eos. Sed si per Christum perficitur opus Dei, restat ut priusquam perficeretur esset diminutum. Qualiter autem diminutum erat opus, cum esset Dei? Perfectio quidem operis, rationalis naturae est perfectio; ad huius enim operis perfectionem, cum esset imperfectum, verbum caro factum accessit. Cum enim quodammodo homo perfectus fuerit, ob transgressionem factus est imperfectus; et ideo missus est salvator, primo quidem ut perficiat voluntatem eius qui misit eum; secundo vero ut consummet opus Dei, ut quilibet perfectus fiat ad solidi cibi usum. ORIGEN. Fit meat for the Son of God, who was so obedient to the Father, that in Him was the t same will that was in the Father: not two wills, but one will in both. The Son is capable of first accomplishing the whole will of the Father. Other saints do nothing against the Father’s will; He does that will. That is His meat in an especial sense. And what means, To finish His work? It would seem easy to say, that a work was what was ordered by him who set it; as where men are set to build or dig. But some who go deeper ask whether a work being finished does not imply that it was before incomplete; and whether God could originally have made an incomplete work? The completing of the work, is the completing of a rational creature: for it was to complete this work, which was as yet imperfect, that the Word made flesh come.
Theophylactus: Opus etiam Dei perfecit, scilicet hominem, Dei filius, nostram naturam in seipso sine peccato ostendens in omni opere perfectam et incorruptam. Opus etiam Dei, scilicet legem, perfecit: quia finis legis Christus eam cessare faciens, omnibus quae in ea erant perfectis, a corporali cultu in spiritualem reduxit. THEOPHYL. He finished the work of God, i.e. man, He, the Son of God, finished it by exhibiting our nature in Himself without sin, perfect and uncorrupt. He finished also the work of God, i.e. the Law, (for Christ is the end of the Law,) by abolishing it, when every thing in it had been fulfilled, and changing a carnal into a spiritual worship.
Origenes: Mystice autem post poculi negotium, ac disciplinam distinctionis aquarum, consequens erat et de cibo disceptare. Samaritana quidem petita potum, non habebat praebere Iesu dignum poculum; discipuli vero invenientes humilia pulmenta apud alienigenas, ei obtulerunt, rogantes eum ut manducaret. Et attende si forsan verentur, ne verbum Dei, propriis non vigoratum escis, in eis deficiat. Quaecumque ergo reperiunt discipuli, his iugiter proponunt verbum alere, ut corroboratum atque roboratum perseveret penes eos qui nutriunt ipsum. Quemadmodum autem corpora egentia cibo, neque eisdem aluntur, neque eadem quantitas ciborum cunctis sufficiens est; sic intelligendum est et in his quae sunt supra corpus: nam horum hoc quidem plurimi, hoc autem paucioris indiget nutrimenti, dissimilis capedinis entia. Sed neque qualitas alentium verborum atque intentionum contemplativarum seu operationum eadem congruit omnibus: nam nuper geniti infantes, rationale appetunt lac; perfectorum autem est solidus cibus. Veridicus est ergo Iesus dicens ego cibum habeo manducare quem vos nescitis. Semper enim qui praeest infirmis ac nequeuntibus eadem cum validis videre, hoc dicere potest. ORIGEN. The matter of spiritual drink and living water being explained, the subject of meat follows. Jesus had asked the woman of Samaria, and she could give Him none good enough. Then came the disciples, having procured some humble food among the people of the country, and offered it Him, beseeching Him to eat. They fear perhaps lest the Word of God, deprived of His own proper nourishment, fail within them; and therefore with such as they have found, immediately propose to feed Him, that being confirmed and strengthened, He may abide with His nourishers. Souls require food as well as bodies. And as bodies require different kinds of it, and in different quantities, so is it in things which are above the body. Souls differ in capacity, and one needs more nourishment, another less. So too in point of quality, the same nourishment of words and thoughts does not suit all. Infants just born need the milk of the word; the grown up, solid meat. Our Lord says, I have meat to eat. For one who is over the weak who cannot behold the same things with the stronger, may always speak thus.

Lectio 8
35 οὐχ ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἔτι τετράμηνός ἐστιν καὶ ὁ θερισμὸς ἔρχεται; ἰδοὺ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐπάρατε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ θεάσασθε τὰς χώρας ὅτι λευκαί εἰσιν πρὸς θερισμόν. ἤδη 36 ὁ θερίζων μισθὸν λαμβάνει καὶ συνάγει καρπὸν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, ἵνα ὁ σπείρων ὁμοῦ χαίρῃ καὶ ὁ θερίζων. 37 ἐν γὰρ τούτῳ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἀληθινὸς ὅτι ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων. 38 ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς θερίζειν ὃ οὐχ ὑμεῖς κεκοπιάκατε: ἄλλοι κεκοπιάκασιν, καὶ ὑμεῖς εἰς τὸν κόπον αὐτῶν εἰσεληλύθατε.
35. Say not you, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 36. And he that reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to life eternal: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. 37. And herein is that saying true, One sows, and another reaps. 38. I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labor: other men labored, and you are entered into their labors.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quae sit voluntas patris, de cetero interpretatur, dicens nonne vos dicitis quod adhuc quatuor menses sunt et messis venit? CHRYS. What is the will of the Father He now proceeds to explain: Say you not, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest?
Theophylactus: Scilicet materialis. Ego autem dico vobis, quod messis intelligibilis adest: hoc enim dicebat propter Samaritanos venientes ad ipsum; unde subdit levate oculos vestros, et videte regiones, quia albae sunt iam ad messem. THEOPHYL. Now you are expecting a material harvest. But I say to you, that a spiritual harvest is at hand: lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. He alludes to the Samaritans who are approaching.
Chrysostomus: Rursus consuetis nominibus ad maximorum eos contemplationem reducit. Regio enim et messis hic indicat multitudinem animarum, quae paratae sunt ad praedicationis susceptionem. Oculos autem hic dicit et eos qui mentis, et eos qui corporis: etenim videbant de reliquo multitudinem Samaritanorum venientem. Has autem praeparationes hominum decenter regiones albatas vocat; sicut enim spicae cum dealbatae fuerint, ad messem sunt paratae, ita et hi ad salutem sunt parati. Sed propter quid non manifeste dicit, quod praeparati sunt homines ad susceptionem verbi? Duarum quidem occasionum gratia: unius quidem ut manifestior fiat sermo, et magis ante oculos ponat quae dicuntur; alterius autem ut dulcior sit narratio et permanentior eorum quae dicuntur memoria. CHRYS. He leads them, as his custom is, from low things to high. Fields and harvest here express the great number of souls, which are ready to receive the word. The eyes are both spiritual, and bodily ones, for they saw a great multitude of Samaritans now approaching. This expectant crowd he calls very suitably white fields. For as the corn, when it grows white, is reader for the harvest; so were these ready for salvation. But why does He not say this in direct language? Because by making use in this way of the objects around them, he gave greater vividness and power to His words, and brought the truth home to them; and also that His discourse might be more pleasant, and might sink deeper into their memories.
Augustinus in Ioannem: In opus autem fervebat et operarios mittere festinabat; unde subditur et qui metit, mercedem accipit, et congregat fructum in vitam aeternam; ut et qui seminat simul gaudeat, et qui metit. AUG. He was intent now on beginning the work, and hastened to send laborers: And he that reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to life eternal, that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together.
Chrysostomus: Per ea quae hic dicit, dividit terrena a caelestibus: sicut enim supra dixerat de aqua, quod qui bibit hanc aquam, non sitiet, ita hic dicit qui metit, congregat fructum in vitam aeternam: et iterum qui seminat, simul gaudeat, et qui metit. Prophetae enim sunt qui seminant; sed non illi messuerunt, sed apostoli: quia enim infra dicet, quod alius seminat et alius metit, ne quis aestimet quod prophetae seminantes mercede priventur, extraneum quiddam inducit, et a sensibilibus alienum: nam in rebus quidem sensibilibus si contingat alium seminare et alium metere, non simul laetantur, sed dolent qui seminant, quasi aliis laborantes; laetantur autem soli qui metunt: hic autem non ita; sed et qui non metunt seminantes, simul cum metentibus laetantur, quoniam in mercede communicant. CHRYS. Again He distinguishes earthly from heavenly things, for as above He said of the water, that he who drank of it should never thirst, so here He says, He that reaps gathers fruit to life eternal; adding, that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. The Prophets sowed, the Apostles reaped, yet are not the former deprived of their reward. For here a new thing is promised; viz. that both sowers and reapers shall rejoice together. How different this from what we see here. Now he that sows grieves because he sows for others, and he only that reaps rejoices. But in the Dew state, the sower and reaper share the same wages.
Augustinus: Disparis enim temporis labores habuerunt apostoli et prophetae; sed gaudio pariter perfruentur, mercedem simul accepturi sunt vitam aeternam. AUG. The Apostles and Prophets had different labors, corresponding to the difference of times; but both will attain to like joy, and receive together their wages, even eternal life.
Chrysostomus: Ad hoc autem quod dixerat sermonem proverbialem inducit; unde subdit in hoc enim est verbum verum, quia alius est qui seminat, et alius qui metit. Hoc quidem vulgariter dicebatur, si quando alii labores sustinebant, et alii fructus metebant. Sed et hic sermo iste maxime habet veritatem: quia prophetae laboraverunt, sed vos fructus ex illorum laboribus metitis; unde subdit ego misi vos metere quod vos non laborastis. CHRYS. He confirms what He says by a proverb, And herein is that saying true, one sows and another reaps, i.e. one party has the labor, and another reaps the fruit. The saying is especially applicable here, for the Prophets had labored, and the disciples reaped the fruits of their labors: I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labor.
Augustinus: Quid ergo? Messores misit, non seminatores? Ibi ergo messores mittendi ubi iam prophetae praedicaverant. Legite labores illorum, et in omnibus eorum laboribus est prophetia Christi: ergo iam in Iudaea messis parata erat quando tot millia hominum pretia rerum suarum offerebant, et ad pedes apostolorum ponentes, expeditis humeris a sarcinis saecularibus, Christum dominum sequebantur. De ipsa messe eiecta sunt pauca grana, et seminaverunt orbem terrarum: et surgit alia messis, quae in fine saeculi metenda est; ad quam metendam non apostoli, sed Angeli mittentur. Messores sunt Angeli. AUG. So then He sent reapers, no sowers. The reapers went where the Prophets had preached. Read the account of their labors: they all contain prophecy of Christ. And the harvest was gathered on that occasion when so many thousands brought the prices of their possessions, and laid them at the Apostles’ feet; relieving their shoulders from earthly burdens, that they might follow Christ. Yes verily, and from that harvest were a few grains scattered, which filled the whole world. And now arises another harvest, which will be reaped at the end of the world, not by Apostles, but by Angels. The reapers, He says, are the Angels.
Chrysostomus: Dicit ergo ego misi vos metere quod vos non laborastis: quasi dicat: ubi minor labor est, maior autem delectatio, ad hoc vos reservavi; et quod laboriosius erat, hoc fuit prophetarum, scilicet mittere semina; unde subdit alii laboraverunt, et vos in labores eorum introistis. Per haec omnia vult ostendere quod prophetarum voluntas erat ut homines ad eum accederent. Et hoc lex ordinabat: et propterea illi seminaverunt, ut hunc facerent fructum. Ostendit etiam quod ipse illos misit, et quod multa est cognatio novi ad vetus testamentum. CHRYS. I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labor, i.e. I have reserved you for a favorable time, in which the labor is less, the enjoyment greater. The more laborious part of the work was laid on the Prophets, viz. the sowing of the seed: Other men labored, and you are entered into their labors. Christ here throws light on the meaning of the old prophecies. He shows that both the Law and the Prophets, if rightly interpreted, led men to Him; and that the Prophets w ere sent in fact by Himself. Thus the intimate connection is established between the Old Testament and the New.
Origenes: Vel aliter totum. Qualiter quidem non est inconveniens hoc quod est levate oculos vestros etc. allegorizare; quod autem dicitur nonne vos dicitis quoniam quatuor menses sunt et messis venit, non secundum allegoricam tractare? Putamus ergo talia quaedam esse in hoc quod dicunt discipuli quatuor menses sunt, et messis venit. Plerique enim discipulorum verbi animadvertentes veritatem incomprehensibilem fore humanae naturae, quando coniecerunt aliam esse vitam a praesente, quae corruptioni quatuor elementorum, quasi quatuor mensium subicitur, putant solum post hanc vitam cognitionem esse veritatis. Dicunt igitur discipuli de messibus, quae sunt terminus operum ad veritatem conducentium, quia post instantem quaternitatem contingunt. Huiusmodi autem opinionem arguens velut non sanam, inquit verbum incarnatum his qui talia suspicantur nonne vos dicitis, quia adhuc quatuor menses sunt et messis venit? Ego autem hoc dico: levate oculos vestros. In pluribus locis Scripturae divinae hoc legitur; iubente nobis verbo divino extollere ac sublimare considerationes et cogitationes deorsum consistentes nec valentes erigi, nisi elevante illas Iesu: nemo enim consistens in passionibus et vivens carnaliter, hoc propositum servat mandatum. Quapropter qui talis est, non videbit regiones, si albae sunt ad messem. Albescunt quidem regiones ad messem, cum adest verbum Dei illustrans singulas regiones Scripturae, fecundans in eius adventu: et etiam omnia sensibilia sunt quasi regiones albae paratae ad messem, praesto existente levantibus oculos ratione, quae de quolibet est, ut quisquis fulgorem prospiciat profusae ubilibet veritatis. Qui autem metit praedictas messes, duplex habet in metendo emolumentum: unum quidem dum accipit praemium; unde dicitur et qui metit, mercedem accipit: quod arbitror dictum causa futurarum remunerationum: alterum quod sequitur et congregat fructum in vitam aeternam, bonum habitum quemdam denotat intellectus, qui est fructus ex ipsa speculatione proveniens. Arbitror autem quod in qualibet doctrina seminat quidem qui principia excogitat, quae suscipientes alii ac pertractantes, si quid novi potuerunt exprimere, coniungentes, fiunt suae inventionis gratia posteris causa ut metendo quasi maturos fructus aggregent. Quanto autem magis hoc in arte artium expedit contemplari? Siquidem seminantes sunt Moyses et prophetae praevenientes adventum Christi; metentes autem sunt apostoli, qui Christum susceperunt et gloriam eius perspexerunt. Semen autem erat tota ratio secundum revelationem mysterii temporibus praeteritis obfuscati silentio: regiones autem, idest legales et propheticae Scripturae, nondum albuerant his qui adventus verbi nequaquam extiterunt capaces. Quod autem simul serens et metens gaudeat, erit cum privatio moeroris et angustiae in futuro fiet saeculo. Dum etiam Iesus transfiguraretur in gloria, simul cum messoribus Petro, Iacobo et Ioanne, Moyses et Elias satores pariter gaudent in videndo filii Dei gloriam. Attende tamen si hoc quod dico, alius et alius, intelligi potest propter aliam et aliam vitae conversationem, in qua homines iustificati sunt: ut liceat dicere alium quidem legis cultorem, alium vero Evangelii: et tamen exultant simul, dum idem finis ab uno Deo per unum Christum in uno spiritu sancto reponitur. Ad labores autem prophetarum et Moysi advenerunt apostoli, instruente Iesu, metentes, ac in horrea colligentes animae suae intellectum in Scripturis illorum reconditum: et semper qui debite capiunt disciplinam, priorum labores ad maiorem evidentiam trahunt, non tantum laborantes sunt hi qui semina condiderunt. ORIGEN. How can we consistently give an allegorical meaning to the words, Lift up your eyes, &c. and only a literal one to the words, There are yet four months, and then comes harvest? The same principle of interpretation surely must be applied to the latter, that is to the former. The four months represent the four elements, i.e. our natural life; the harvest, the end of the world, when all conflict shall have ceased, and truth shall prevail. The disciples then regard the truth as incomprehensible in our natural state, and look forward to the end of the world for attaining the knowledge of it. But this idea our Lord condemns: Say not you, there are four months, and then comes harvest? Behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes. In many places of Holy Scripture, we are commanded in the same way to raise the thoughts of our minds, which cling so obstinately to earth. A difficult task this for one who indulges his passions, and lives carnally. Such an one will not see if the fields be white to the harvest. For when are the fields white to the harvest? When the Word of God comes to light up and make fruitful the fields of Scripture. Indeed, all sensible things are as it were fields made white for the harvest, if only reason be at hand to interpret them. We lift up our eyes, and behold the whole universe over-spread with the brightness of truth. And he that reaps those harvests, has a double reward of his reaping; first, his wages; And he that reaps receives wages; meaning his reward in the life to come; secondly, a certain good state of the understanding, which is the fruit of contemplation, And gathers fruit to life eternal. The man who thinks out the first principles of any science, is as it were the sower in that science; others taking them up, pursuing them to their results, and engrafting fresh matter upon them, strike out new discoveries, from which posterity reaps a plentiful harvest. And how much more may we perceive this in the art of arts? The seed there is the whole dispensation of the mystery, now revealed, but formerly hidden in darkness; for while men were unfit for the advent of the Word, the fields were not yet white to their eyes, i.e. the legal and prophetical Scriptures were shut up. Moses and the Pro pets, who preceded the coming of Christ, were the sowers of this seed; the Apostles who came after Christ and saw His glory were the reapers. They reaped and gathered into barns the deep meaning which lay hid under the prophetic writings; and did in short what those do who succeed to a scientific system which others have discovered, and who with less trouble attain to clearer results than they who originally sowed the seed. But they that sowed and they that reaped shall rejoice together in another world, in which all sorrow and mourning shall be done away. Nay, and have they not rejoiced already; Did not Moses and Elias, the sowers, rejoice with the reapers Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the Transfiguration? Perhaps in, one sows and another reaps, one and another may refer simply to those who live under the Law, and those who live under the Gospel. For these may both rejoice together, inasmuch as the same end is laid up for them by one God, through one Christ, in one Holy Spirit.

Lectio 9
39 ἐκ δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν τῶν Σαμαριτῶν διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς γυναικὸς μαρτυρούσης ὅτι εἶπέν μοι πάντα ἃ ἐποίησα. 40 ὡς οὖν ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Σαμαρῖται, ἠρώτων αὐτὸν μεῖναι παρ' αὐτοῖς: καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ δύο ἡμέρας. 41 καὶ πολλῷ πλείους ἐπίστευσαν διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, 42 τῇ τε γυναικὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι οὐκέτι διὰ τὴν σὴν λαλιὰν πιστεύομεν: αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκηκόαμεν, καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου.
39. And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. 40. So when the Samaritans were come to him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days. 41. And many more believed because of his own word; 42. And said to the woman, Now we believe, not because of your saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.

Origenes in Ioannem: Postquam dicta sunt discipulis quae tractata sunt, resumit Scriptura de his qui venerant de civitate ad Iesum, et crediderant per testimonium mulieris. ORIGEN After this conversation with the disciples, Scripture returns to those who had believed on the testimony of the woman, and were come to see Jesus.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sicut autem in messe cum facilitate fructus congregantur, et in momento uno area manipulis repletur, ita et nunc fit; unde dicitur ex civitate autem illa multi crediderunt in eum Samaritanorum, propter verbum mulieris testimonium perhibentis, quia dixit mihi omnia quaecumque feci. Considerabant enim, quod nequaquam mulier gratanter eum admirata esset qui eius delicta redarguerat, nisi magnus quis esset et excellens qui praedicabatur ab illa. Sic ergo solo mulieris testimonio credentes, et nullum signum videntes, exierunt deprecantes Christum ut apud eos maneret; et hoc est quod sequitur cum ergo venissent ad illum Samaritani, rogaverunt eum ut ibi maneret. Iudaei vero miracula videntes, non detinuerunt eum apud seipsos; sed omnia egerunt ut a regione eorum eum abicerent: nihil enim livore et invidia deterius, nihil inani gloria difficilius, quae infinita corrumpere consuevit bona. Et quidem Samaritani volebant eum semper secum detinere; ipse autem hoc non sustinuit, sed solum mansit ibi duobus diebus post haec; quod subditur et mansit ibi duos dies. CHRYS. It is now, as it were, harvest time, when the corn is gathered, and a whole floor soon covered with sheaves; And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on Him, for the saying of the woman which testified, He told me all that ever I did. They considered that the woman would never of her own accord have conceived such admiration for one Who had reproved her offenses, unless He were really some great and wonderful person. And thus relying solely on the testimony of the woman, without any other evidence, they went out to beseech Christ to stay with them: So when the Samaritans were come to Him, they besought Him that He would tarry with them. The Jews when they saw His miracles, so far from begging Him to stay, tried in every way to get rid of His presence. Such is the power of malice, and envy, and vainglory, that obstinate vice which poisons even goodness itself. Though the Samaritans however wished to keep Him with them, He would not consent, but only tarried there two days.
Origenes: Non incongrue autem aliquis illud obiciet, quomodo rogatus salvator cum Samaritanis manet, qui iussit civitatem Samaritanorum non ingredi. Palam enim quoniam et discipuli eius cum eo ingressi sunt. Ad quod dicendum, quod in viam gentium pergere est imbui gentili dogmate, et in illo ambulare. Civitatem vero Samaritanorum intrare est acceptare falsam doctrinam recipientium legales, propheticos, evangelicos, et apostolicos sermones. Cum autem deseruerint propriam doctrinam et venerint ad Iesum, licet cum eis manere. ORIGEN. It is natural to ask, why our Savior stays with the Samaritans, when He had given a command to His disciples not to enter into any city of the Samaritans. But we must explain this mystically. To go the way of the Gentiles, is to be imbued with Gentile doctrine; to go into a city of the Samaritans, is to admit the doctrines of those who believe the Scriptures, but interpret them heretically. But when men have given up their own doctrines, and come to Jesus, it is lawful to stay with them.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Et Iudaei quidem etiam signis visis incorrecti manserunt; hi autem et sine signis multam circa eum fidem demonstraverunt; solum enim verba audierunt; unde sequitur et multo plures crediderunt propter sermonem eius. Cuius igitur gratia haec verba non dicunt Evangelistae? Ut discas quoniam multa magnorum transcurrerunt, a fine vero totum ostenderunt: suasit enim toti civitati per ea quae dicta sunt. Ubi autem auditores non persuadentur, tunc Evangelistae coguntur dicere ea quae dicta sunt, ne quod est ex indevotione auditorum, imputet quis defectui praedicantis. Ipsi autem discipuli Christi iam facti, magistram repulerunt; unde sequitur et mulieri dicebant: quia iam non propter tuam loquelam credimus: ipsi enim audivimus, et scimus quia hic est vere salvator mundi. Vide autem qualiter confestim intellexerunt quod orbem terrarum liberare venerat, et quod ad communem salutem veniens, non debebat in Iudaeis suam concludere providentiam, sed ubique seminare sermonem. Dicentes etiam, quod est salvator mundi, ostenderunt quod mundus perditus erat, in magnis malis existens. Et quidem venerunt salvare prophetae et Angeli; sed hic est vere salvator, qui salutem tribuit, non solum temporaneam, sed aeternam. Vide etiam qualiter audientes mulierem dubitanter dicentem numquid hic est Christus? Non dixerunt hi: quoniam nos suspicamur, sed quoniam scimus; et non simpliciter, sed quoniam hic vere salvator mundi, non quasi unum ex multis Christum confitentes. Solum verba audierunt, et hoc dixerunt quod dicere habebant, si miracula multa et magna vidissent. CHRYS. The Jews disbelieved in spite of miracles, while these exhibited great faith, be fore even a miracle was wrought, and when they had only heard our Lord’s words. And many more believed because of His own word. Why then do not the Evangelists give these words? To show that they omit many important things, and because the result shows what they were; the result being that the whole city was convinced. On the other hand, when the hearers are not convinced, the Evangelists are obliged to give our Lord’s words, that the failure may be seen to be owing to the indifference of the hearers, not to any defect in the preacher. And now, having become Christ’s disciples, they dismiss their first instructor; And they said to the woman, Now we believe not because of your saying: for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world. How soon they understand that He was come for the deliverance of the whole world, and could not therefore confine His purposes to the Jews, but must sow the Word every where. Their saying too, The Savior of the world, implies that they looked on this world as miserable and lost; and that, whereas Prophets and Angels had come to save it, this was the only real Savior, the Author not only of temporal but eternal salvation. And, observe, whereas the woman had spoken doubtfully, Is not this the Christ? they do not say, we suspect, but we know, know, that this is indeed the Savior of the world, not one Christ out of many. Though they had only heard His words, they said as much as they could have done, had they seen ever so many and great miracles.
Origenes: Ceterum si meminimus praedictorum, non difficile est conicere quomodo cum repererint verbum sincerum, alias disciplinas relinquunt, quasi dogmatum civitatem, de qua egredientes salutifere credunt. Et puto studiose protulisse Ioannem, cum non dixit: rogabant eum Samaritani intrare tantum Samariam, vel ingredi civitatem, sed etiam ibi manere. Manet namque Iesus penes deprecantes; et praesertim quoties qui precantur exeunt civitatem, et versus eum veniunt. ORIGEN. With the aid of our former observations on Jacob’s well, and the water, it wills not be difficult to see, why, when they find the true word, they leave other doctrines, i.e. the city, for a sound faith. Observe, they did not ask our Savior only to enter Samaria, St. John particularly remarks, or enter that city, but to tarry there. Jesus tarries with those who ask Him, and especially with those who go out of the city to Him.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Manet apud eos biduo; hoc est, dat illis duo praecepta caritatis. [Augustine, on John: He remains with them two days, that is, he gives them the two commandments of charity.]
Origenes: Neque enim capaces erant tertiae diei eius; non enim erant avidi miraculorum quid cernere, quale qui fuerant in Cana Galilaeae post triduum cum Iesu convivantes. Initium autem credendi multis fuit mulieris verbum: non enim sic per seipsum verbum conspicitur illuminans capientem, velut cum alterius dicto sibi testimonium perhibetur. ORIGEN. They were not ready yet for the third day; having no anxiety to see a miracle, as those had who supped with Jesus in Cana of Galilee. (This supper was after He had been in Cana three days.) The woman’s report was the ground of their belief. The enlightening power of the Word itself was not yet visible to them.
Augustinus: Sic ergo Christum cognoverunt primo per famam, postea per praesentiam; sicut agitur hodie cum eis qui foris sunt, et nondum sunt Christiani: Christus nuntiatur per Christianos amicos: tamquam illa muliere, hoc est Ecclesia, nuntiante ad Christum veniunt: credunt per istam feminam; et multo plures et firmius in eum credunt, quoniam vere ipse est salvator mundi. AUG. So then they knew Christ first by report of another, afterwards by His own presence; which is still the case of those that are without the fold, and not yet Christians. Christ is announced to them by some charitable Christians, by the report of the woman, i.e. the Church; they come to Christ, they believe on Him, through the instrumentality of that woman; He stays with them two days, i.e. gives them two precepts of charity. And thenceforth their belief is stronger. They believe that He is indeed the Savior of the world.
Origenes: Impossibile est namque eamdem circa intellectum fieri passionem videnti, et ei qui per videntem instruitur; magisque est per speciem ambulare quam per fidem; unde hi non solum testimonio hominis, sed ob ipsam quoque veritatem credunt. ORIGEN. For it is impossible that the same impression should be produced by hearing from one who has seen, and seeing one’s self; walking by sight is different from walking by faith. The Samaritans now do not believe only from testimony, but from really seeing the truth.

Lectio 10
43 μετὰ δὲ τὰς δύο ἡμέρας ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν: 44 αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. 45 ὅτε οὖν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐδέξαντο αὐτὸν οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι, πάντα ἑωρακότες ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ, καὶ αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν.
43. Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee. 44. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country. 45. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went to the feast.

Alcuinus: Post biduum quod fecit in Samaria, abiit in Galilaeam, ubi nutritus fuerat; unde dicitur post duos autem dies exiit inde, et abiit in Galilaeam. AUG. After staying two days in Samaria, He departed into Galilee, where He resided: Now after two days He departed thence, and went into Galilee.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Movet autem nos cur Evangelista dixerit consequenter ipse enim Iesus testimonium perhibuit, quia propheta in sua patria honorem non habet. Magis enim videtur attestari potuisse, quod propheta in patria sua honorem non habet, si contemneret pergere in Galilaeam, et in Samaria remansisset. Hoc ego sentio. In Samaria biduum fecit, et crediderunt in eum Samaritani: tot dies fecit in Galilaea, et non crediderunt in eum Galilaei; et propter hoc dixit, quod propheta in patria sua honorem non habet. AUG. Why then does the Evangelist say immediately, For Jesus Himself testified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country. For He would seem to have testified more to the truth, had He remained in Samaria, and not gone into Galilee. Not so: He stayed two days in Samaria and the Samaritans believed on Him: He stayed the same time in Galilee, and the Galileans did not believe on Him, and therefore He said, that a prophet has no honor in his own country.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Ideo hoc adiectum est, quia non in Capharnaum abiit, sed in Galilaeam, et in Cana, ut infra dicetur. Ego enim patriam eum hic aestimo dicere Capharnaum. Quoniam autem non potitus est illic honore, audi eum dicentem: et tu, Capharnaum, quae usque ad caelum exaltata es, usque ad Infernum descendes. Dicit autem hic patriam propriam, in qua videtur plus conversatus. CHRYS. Or consider this the reason that He went, not to Capernaum, but to Galilee and Cana, as appears below, His country being, I think, Capernaum. As He did not obtain honor there, hear what He says; And you, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be brought down to hell. He calls it His own country, because He had most resided here.
Theophylactus: Vel aliter. Quia dominus exiens de Samaria, venit in Galilaeam, ne aliquis dubitaret et quaereret qua de causa non semper in Galilaea maneret, dicit, quod propter hoc non manebat in Galilaea, quia nullum ibidem recipiebat honorem; quod ipse testatus est dicens quia propheta in sua patria non habet honorem. THEOPHYL. Or thus: Our Lord on leaving Samaria for Galilee, explains why He was not always in Galilee: viz. because of the little honor He received there. A prophet has no honor in his own country.
Origenes in Ioannem: Perscrutanda est autem huius dicti sententia. Patria siquidem prophetarum in Iudaea erat, et est non ignotum quod honorem a Iudaeis nequaquam sunt consecuti, iuxta illud: quemnam prophetarum non persecuti sunt patres vestri? Miranda etiam occurrit huius decreti veracitas, cum pervenerit non tantum ad sanctos prophetas vilipensos a propriis, et ipsum dominum nostrum; sed protensa sit etiam in quosdam prophetiae sequaces contemptos a suis civibus, et ad mortem deductos. ORIGEN. The country of the prophets was Judea, and every one knows how little honor they received from the Jews, as we read, Whom of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? One cannot but wonder at the truth of this saying, exemplified not only in the contempt cast upon the holy prophets and our Lord Himself, but also in the case of other teachers of wisdom who have been despised by their fellow-citizens and put to death.
Chrysostomus: Quid igitur? Nonne videmus et apud suos multos in admirationem deductos? Ita quidem: sed ab his quae raro contingunt non oportet talia pronuntiari. Sed et si in propria patria aliqui honorantur, multo magis in aliena. Consuetudo enim facile homines contemptibiles facere consuevit. Quando igitur venit in Galilaeam, susceperunt eum Galilaei; unde sequitur cum ergo venisset in Galilaeam, exceperunt eum Galilaei. Vides quoniam qui mali dicebantur, hi maxime ad Christum accedere inveniuntur. Nam propter Galilaeos dicitur: interroga, et vide, quoniam propheta ex Galilaea non surrexit. Propter Samaritanos autem improperabant ei: Samaritanus es et Daemonium habes. Sed ecce Samaritani et Galilaei credunt in confusionem Iudaeorum. Inveniuntur autem et Galilaei Samaritanis meliores: nam illi quidem mulieris crediderunt verbis; hi vero videntes signa quae faciebat; unde sequitur cum omnia vidissent quae fecerat Hierosolymis in die festo. CHRYS. But do we not see many held in admiration by their own people? We do; but we cannot argue from a few instances. If some are honored in their own country, many more are honored out of it, and familiarity generally subjects men to contempt. The Galileans however received our Lord: Then when He was come into Galilee, the Galileans received Him. Observe how those who are spoken ill of, are always the first to come to Christ. Of the Galileans we find it said below, Search and, look, for out of Galilee arises no prophet. And He is reproached with being a Samaritan, You are a Samaritan, and have a devil. And yet the Samaritans and Galileans believe, to the condemnation of the Jews. The Galileans however are superior to the Samaritans; for the latter believed from hearing the woman’s words, the former from seeing the signs which He did: Having seen all the things that He did at Jerusalem at the feast.
Origenes: Quod enim dominus eicit de templo vendentes oves et boves, tam grande reperitur ut his moti Galilaei reciperent dominum, considerantes mirantesque maiestatem eius: non enim minor potentia eius ostenditur in his quam ut caeci videant, audiantque surdi. Aestimo vero nec haec sola ipsum tunc fecisse, sed et alia signa. ORIGEN. Our Lord by ejecting those who sold sheep and oxen from the temple, had impressed the Galileans with a strong idea of His Majesty, and they received Him. His power was shown no less in this act, than in making the blind to see, and the deaf to hear. But probably He had performed some other miracles as well.
Beda: Sed unde data est eis videndi occasio, ostendit subdens et ipsi enim venerant ad diem festum. Mystice autem intimatur quod gentibus in fide a duobus praeceptis caritatis consolidatis, Christus circa fines mundi revertetur ad patriam, idest ad Iudaeos. BEDE. They had seen Him at Jerusalem, For they also went to the feast. Our Lord’s return has a mystical meaning, viz. that, when the Gentiles have been confirmed in the faith by the two precepts of love, i.e. at the end of the world, He will return to His country, i.e. Judea.
Origenes in Ioannem: Expedit autem Galilaeum, idest transmigrantem, restare Hierosolymis, ubi est templum Dei, et videre singula quae peragit ibi Iesus. Hoc enim est principium, ut Galilaei recipiant Dei filium euntem ad ipsos; alioquin vel non recepissent illum, vel etiam ipse nondum ipsis praeparatis ad eius receptionem adeo prope venisset ad eos. ORIGEN. The Galileans were allowed to keep the feast at Jerusalem, where they had seen Jesus. Thus they were prepared to receive Him, when He came: otherwise they would either have rejected Him; or He, knowing their unprepared state, would not have gone near them.

Lectio 11
46 ἦλθεν οὖν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ὅπου ἐποίησεν τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον. καὶ ἦν τις βασιλικὸς οὗ ὁ υἱὸς ἠσθένει ἐν Καφαρναούμ: 47 οὗτος ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἥκει ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἠρώτα ἵνα καταβῇ καὶ ἰάσηται αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱόν, ἤμελλεν γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκειν. 48 εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε. 49 λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ βασιλικός, κύριε, κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου. 50 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πορεύου: ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ. ἐπίστευσεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπορεύετο. 51 ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ καταβαίνοντος οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ὅτι ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ ζῇ. 52 ἐπύθετο οὖν τὴν ὥραν παρ' αὐτῶν ἐν ᾗ κομψότερον ἔσχεν: εἶπαν οὖν αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐχθὲς ὥραν ἑβδόμην ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ὁ πυρετός. 53 ἔγνω οὖν ὁ πατὴρ ὅτι [ἐν] ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐν ᾗ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ, καὶ ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη. 54 τοῦτο [δὲ] πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum. 47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death. 48. Then said Jesus to him, Except you see signs and wonders, you will not believe. 49. The nobleman said to him, Sir, come down ere my child die. 50. Jesus said to him, Go your way; your son lives. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him, and he went his way. 51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, your son lives. 52. Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said to him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. 53. So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said to him, your son lives: and himself believed, and his whole house. 54. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into Galilee.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Primo quidem dominus, ut supra dictum est, in Cana Galilaeae venerat vocatus ad nuptias; nunc autem ad eos vadit, ut magis eos attrahat, sponte ad eos veniens, propria patria dimissa, et ut fidem a priori miraculo in eis initiatam fortiorem faceret propter suam praesentiam. CHRYS. On a former occasion our Lord attended a marriage in Cana of Galilee, now He goes there to convert the people, and confirm by His presence the faith which His miracle had produced. He goes there in preference to His own country.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ibi enim quando aquam in vinum convertit, crediderunt in eum discipuli eius: et utique plena domus erat turbis convivantium, et factum est tam magnum miraculum, et non crediderunt nisi discipuli eius: et ideo hanc civitatem modo repetivit, scilicet ut qui per priora non crediderant, modo credant. AUG. There, we are told, His disciples believed on Him. Though the house was crowded with guests, the only persons who believed in consequence of this great miracle, were His disciples. He therefore visits the city again, in order to try a second time to convert them.
Theophylactus: Rememorat autem nobis Evangelista miraculum perpetratum in Cana Galilaeae de aqua conversa in vinum, ut augeret Christi praeconium: quia Galilaei non solum propter miracula Hierosolymis facta, sed et propter ea quae apud ipsos facta erant, receperunt Iesum; simulque ut ostenderet quod regulus credidit propter miraculum in Cana perpetratum, quamvis eius non perfecte cognoverit dignitatem; unde sequitur et erat quidam regulus, cuius filius infirmabatur Capharnaum. THEOPHYL. The Evangelist reminds us of the miracle in order to express the praise due to the Samaritans. For the Galileans in receiving Him were influenced as well by the miracle He had wrought with them, as by those they had seen at Jerusalem. The nobleman certainly believed in consequence of the miracle performed at Cana, though he did not yet understand Christ’s full greatness; And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.
Origenes in Ioannem: Putabit autem aliquis regis Herodis hunc esse regulum: et aliquis asserit hunc esse de familia Caesaris, exercentem tunc temporis aliquid in Iudaea: neque enim dicitur quod Iudaeus fuerit. ORIGEN. Some think that this was an officer of King Herod’s; others, that he was one of Caesar’s household, then employed on some commission in Judea. It is not said that He was a Jew.
Chrysostomus: Regulus autem dicitur, aut quasi generis existens regalis, aut dignitatem aliquam principatus habens; aut quia sic vocabatur.

Igitur quidam hunc eumdem esse existimant centurionem, qui est apud Matthaeum. Ostenditur autem alius esse ab eo: nam ille quidem Christum volentem ire ad suam domum, rogat remanere; hic autem et nihil tale promittentem ad domum trahit: et ille quidem ad Iesum de monte descendentem Capharnaum intravit; hic autem ad Iesum in Cana venientem accessit: et illius quidem puer a paralysi detinebatur; huius autem filius a febre. De hoc ergo regulo subditur hic cum audisset quod Iesus adveniret a Iudaea in Galilaeam, abiit ad eum, et rogabat eum ut descenderet, et sanaret filium eius: incipiebat enim mori.

AUG. He is called a nobleman, either as being of the royal family, or as having some office of government.

CHRYS. Some think that he is the same centurion, who is mentioned in Matthew. But that he is a different person is clear from this; that the latter, when Christ wished to come to his house, entreated Him not; whereas the former brought Christ to his house, though he had received no promise of a cure. And the latter met Jesus on His way from the mountain to Capernaum; whereas the former came to Jesus in Cana. And the latter servant was laid up with the palsy, the former’s son with a fever. Of this nobleman then we read, When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him, and besought Him that He could heal his son: for be was at the point of death.

Augustinus: Qui rogabat, nonne credebat? Quid a me expectas audire? Dominum interroga quid de illo senserit; sequitur enim dixit ergo Iesus ad eum: nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis. Arguit hominem in fide tepidum aut frigidum, aut omnino nullius fidei; sed tentare cupientem de sanitate filii sui, qualis esset Christus, quid esset, quantum posset. Prodigium quidem appellatum est, quasi porrodicium, quod porro dicat, porro significet, et futurum aliquid portendat. AUG. Did not he who made this request believe? Mark what our Lord says; Then said Jesus to him, Except you see signs and wonders, you will Not believe. This is to charge the man either with lukewarmness, or coldness of faith, or with went of faith altogether: as if his only object was to put Christ’s power to the test, and see who and what kind of person Christ was, and what He could do. The word prodigy (wonder) signifies something far off, in futurity.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Adeo autem dominus supra omnia mutabilia vult mentem credentis attollere, ut nec ipsa miracula, quae, quamvis divinitus, de mutabilitate corporum fiunt, a fidelibus quaeri velit. AUG. Our Lord would have the mind of the believer so raised above all mutable things, as not to seek even for miracles. For miracles, though sent from heaven, are, in their subject matter, mutable.
Gregorius in Evang: Sed mementote etiam quae petiit; et aperte agnoscetis quia in fide dubitavit. Poposcit namque ut descenderet, et sanaret filium eius; unde sequitur dicit ad eum regulus: domine, descende priusquam moriatur filius meus. Minus itaque in illum credidit quem non putavit posse salutem dare, nisi praesens esset et corpore. GREG. Remember what He asked for, and you will plainly see that he doubted. He asked Him to come down and see his son: The nobleman said to him, Sir, come down, ere my child die. His faith was deficient; in that he thought that our Lord could not save, except He were personally present.
Chrysostomus: Audi etiam qualiter adhuc terrene Christum trahit, quasi non posset eum post mortem suscitare. Si autem non credens venit et rogavit, nil mirabile. Consueverunt enim patres ex multo amore non solum medicis loqui de quibus confidunt, sed de quibus non confidunt; nihil volentes praetermittere eorum quae ad salutem pertinent filiorum. Si tamen valde crederet Christi virtutem, non neglexisset etiam in Iudaeam ire. CHRYS. And mark his earthly mind, shown in hurrying Christ along with him; as if our Lord could not raise his son after death. Indeed it is very possible that be may have asked in unbelief. For fathers often are so carried away by their affection, as to consult not only those they depend upon, but even those they do not depend upon at all: not wishing to leave any means untried, which might save their children. But had he had any strong reliance upon Christ, he would have gone to Him in Judea.
Gregorius: Sed dominus qui rogatur ut vadat, quia non desit ubi invitatur, indicat: solo iussu salutem reddidit qui voluntate omnia creavit; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: vade, filius tuus vivit. Hic superbia nostra retunditur, qui in hominibus non naturam, qua ad imaginem Dei facti sunt, sed honores et divitias veneramur. Redemptor vero noster, ut ostenderet quoniam quae alta sunt hominibus, sanctis despicienda sunt, et quae despicienda sunt hominibus, despicienda non sunt sanctis, ad filium reguli ire noluit, ad servum centurionis ire paratus fuit. GREG. Our Lord in His answer implies that He is in a certain sense where He is invited present, even when He is absent from a place. He saves by His command simply, even as by His will He created all things: Jesus said to him, Go your way, your son lives. Here is a blow to that pride which honors human wealth and greatness, and not that nature which is made after the image of God. Our Redeemer, to show that things made much of among men, were to be despised by Saints, and things despised made much of, did not go to the nobleman’s son, but was ready to go to the centurion’s servant.
Chrysostomus: Vel aliter. Illic quidem fides confirmata erat; idcirco et promisit ire, ut discamus viri devotionem: hic autem adhuc imperfectus erat, et nondum noverat manifeste quod absens curare poterat: unde ex hoc quod non accedit Iesus, hoc addiscit; sequitur enim credidit homo sermoni quem dixit ei Iesus, et ibat; non tamen integre, neque sane. CHRYS. Or thus; In the centurion there was confirmed faith and true devotion, and therefore our Lord was ready to go. But the nobleman’s faith was still imperfect, as he thought our Lord could not heal in the absence of the sick person. But Christ’s answer enlightened him. And the man believed the word which Jesus had spoken to him, and went his way. He did not believe, however, wholly or completely.
Origenes in Ioannem: Ostenditur autem eius dignitas et officium ex hoc quod servientes illi occurrunt; unde sequitur iam autem eo descendente, servi occurrerunt ei, et nuntiaverunt ei, dicentes, quia filius eius viveret. ORIGEN. His rank appears in the fact of his servants meeting him: And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, your son lives.
Chrysostomus: Qui quidem obviaverunt, non ut annuntiarent solum, sed quasi aestimantes de reliquo superfluam esse Christi praesentiam, quem credebant accedere. Quod autem regulus non integre credidit neque sane, ostenditur ex hoc quod sequitur interrogabat ergo horam ab eis in qua melius habuerat. Volebat enim scire utrum casu, vel ex praecepto Christi hoc factum esset. Sequitur et dixerunt ei, quia heri hora septima reliquit eum febris. Vide qualiter miraculum manifestum est: non enim simpliciter, neque ut contingit, a periculo liberatus est; sed repente et simul: ut appareat non esse ex naturae consequentia quod fiebat, sed ex actione Christi; unde sequitur cognovit ergo pater quia illa hora erat in qua dixit ei Iesus: filius tuus vivit: et credidit ipse, et domus eius tota. CHRYS. They met him, to announce what had happened, and prevent Christ from coming, as He was no longer wanted. That the nobleman did not fully believe, is shown by what follows: Then inquired he of them at what hour he began to amend. He wished to find out whether the recovery was accidental, or owing to our Lord’s word. And they said to him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. How obvious is the miracle? His recovery did not take place in an ordinary way, but all at once; in order that it might be seen to be Christ’s doing, and not the result of nature: So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said to him, your son lives; and himself believed, and his whole house.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Si ergo propterea credidit quia nuntiatum est ei quod filius eius esset sanus, et comparavit horam nuntiantium horae praenuntiantis, quando rogabat, nondum credebat. AUG. If he only believed when he was told that his son was well again, and had compared the hour according to his servant’s account, with the hour predicted by Christ, he did not believe when he first made the petition.
Beda: Unde datur intelligi, et in fide gradus esse, sicut et in aliis virtutibus, quibus est initium, incrementum atque perfectio. Huius ergo fides initium habuit cum filii salutem petiit; incrementum dum credidit sermoni domini dicentis filius tuus vivit; deinde perfectionem obtinuit nuntiantibus servis. BEDE. So, we see, faith, like the other virtues, is formed gradually, and has its beginning, growth, and maturity. His faith had its beginning, when he asked for his son’s recovery; its growth, when he believed our Lord’s words, Your son lives; its maturity, after the announcement of the fact by his servants.
Augustinus: Ad solum sermonem crediderunt plures Samaritani; ad illud miraculum sola illa domus credidit ubi est factum; unde subdit Evangelista hoc iterum secundum signum fecit Iesus, cum venisset a Iudaea in Galilaeam. AUG. The Samaritans believed; on the strength of His words only: that whole house believed on the strength of the miracle which had been brought in it. The Evangelist adds, This is again the second miracle which Jesus did, when He was come out of Judea into Galilee.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Non sine causa adiecit; sed ostendens quoniam secundo signo facto, nondum ad perfectionem Samaritanorum nullum signum videntium Iudaei pervenerunt. CHRYS. The second miracle, he says markedly. The Jews had not come to the more perfect faith of the Samaritans, who saw no miracle.
Origenes in Ioannem: Amphibologiam autem continet praesens dictum; uno enim modo denotat quod Iesus veniendo a Iudaea in Galilaeam, duo fecit miracula: quorum secundum est factum erga filium reguli: alio modo sic: duobus existentibus signis quae Iesus in Galilaea exercuit, secundum egit veniens a Iudaea in Galilaeam; et hic sensus verus est. Mystice autem, per hoc quod Iesus bis in Galilaeam accedit, binus salvatoris adventus in mundum ostenditur: primus quidem misericordiae, ut vino facto convivas exhilaret; secundus vero ut filium reguli ad mortem pene deductum suscitet, idest populum Iudaeorum, qui post plenitudinem gentium accedet salvandus in fine. Magnus autem rex regum est qui constitutus est a Deo in monte Sion sancto eius: huius qui viderunt diem, et gavisi sunt, reguli dignoscuntur. Arbitramur igitur regulum esse Abraham, aegrotum vero filium eius, Israeliticum genus debilitatum erga cultum divinum; et ideo incaluit ignitis spiculis inimici, ut proinde febrire censeatur. Apparet autem quod praecedentibus sanctis, postquam carnis exuerunt amictum, populus fuit curae: unde legitur in Machab. post mortem Ieremiae: hic est Ieremias propheta Dei, qui plurimum orat pro populo. Abraham igitur obsecrat adiuvari a salvatore populum infirmum. Et quidem potestatis verbum de Cana prodit, ubi dictum est filius tuus vivit; sed verbi efficacia in Capharnaum agitur, nam ibi filius reguli curatus est, quasi in agro consolationis morans; quod significat genus quoddam debilium, non tamen omnino fructibus privatorum. Illud autem nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis, dictum illi, refertur ad multitudinem filiorum suorum, et ad ipsum quodammodo: sicut enim Ioannes expectabat datum sibi signum, scilicet: super quem videris spiritum descendentem, sic et praemortui sancti adventum Christi in carnem et signis et prodigiis manifestandum expectabant. Habebat autem hic regulus non solum filium, sed etiam servos; per quos significatur materies quaedam minus bene et infirme credentium. Nec a casu hora septima deserit filium febris: nam septenarius numerus est quietis. ORIGEN. The sentence is ambiguous. Taken one way, it means that Jesus after coming to Galilee, performed two miracles, of which that of healing the nobleman’s son was the second: taken another, it means, that of the two miracles which Jesus performed in Galilee, the second was done after coming from Judea into Galilee. The latter is the true and received meaning. Mystically, the two journeys of Christ into Galilee signify His two advents; at the first of which He makes us His guest at supper, and gives us wine to drink; at the second, He raises up the nobleman’s son who was at the point of death, i.e. the Jewish people, who, after the fullness of the Gentiles, attain themselves to salvation. For, as the great King of Kings is He, whom God has seated upon His holy hill of Sion, so the lesser king is he, who saw his day, and was glad, i.e. Abraham. And therefore his sick son is the Jewish people fallen from the true religion, and thrown into a fever in consequence by the fiery darts of the enemy. And we know that the saints of old, even when they had put off the covering of the flesh, made the people the object of their care: for we read in Maccabees, after the death of Jeremiah, This is Jeremias the prophet of the Lord, who prays much for the people. Abraham therefore prays to our Savior to succor his diseased people. Again, the word of power, Your son lives, comes forth from Cana, i.e. the work of the Word, the healing of the nobleman’s son, is done in Capernaum, i.e. the land of consolation. The nobleman’s son signifies the class of believers who though diseased are yet not altogether destitute of fruits. The words, Except you see signs and wonders, you will not believe, are spoken of the Jewish people in general, or perhaps of the nobleman, i.e. Abraham himself, in a certain sense. For as John waited for a sign; on Whom you shall see the Spirit descending; so too the Saints who died before the coming of Christ in the flesh, expected Him to manifest Himself by signs and wonders. And this nobleman too had servants as well as a son; which servants stand for the lower and weaker class of believers. Nor is it chance that the fever leaves the son at the seventh hour; for seven is the number of rest.
Alcuinus: Vel quia per septiformem spiritum est omnis remissio peccatorum: septenarius enim in tria et quatuor divisus significat sanctam Trinitatem, in quatuor anni temporibus, in quatuor mundi partibus, in quatuor elementis. ALCUIN. Or it was the seventh hour, because all remission of sins is through the sevenfold Spirit; for the number seven divided into three and four, signifies the Holy Trinity, in the four seasons of the world, in the four elements.
Origenes: Possunt quoque significari duo adventus Christi verbi ad animam: primus quidem ex facto vino praebens animae gaudium spiritualis convivii; secundus vero omnes languoris ac mortis reliquias amputans. ORIGEN. There may be an allusion in the two journeys to the two advents of Christ in the soul, the first supplying a spiritual banquet of wine, the second taking away all remains of weakness and death.
Theophylactus: Regulus autem est omnis homo: non solum quia regi universorum propinquus existit secundum animam, sed quia et ipse super omnia principatum sumpsit; cuius filius, idest mens, febricitat voluptatibus pravis et desideriis. Accedit autem ad Iesum, et deprecatur ut descendat; idest, ut condescensu misericordiae utatur, et parcat peccatis, priusquam a voluptatum infirmitate mortificetur. Sed dominus dicit vade, idest, profectum continuum circa bonum ostendas, et tunc filius tuus vivet; si autem ambulare cessaveris, mortificabitur tibi intellectus circa boni operationem. THEOPHYL. The little king stands for man generally; man not only deriving his soul from the King of the universe, but having Himself dominion over all things. His son, i.e. his mind, labors under a fever of evil passion and desires. He goes to Jesus and entreats Him to come down; i.e. to exercise the condescension of His pity, and pardon his sins, before it is too late. Our Lord answers; Go your way, i.e. advance in holiness, and then your son will live; but if you stop short in your course, you will destroy the power of understanding and doing right.

CHAPTER V
Lectio 1
1 μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα. 2 ἔστιν δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰεροσολύμοις ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρα ἡ ἐπιλεγομένη ἑβραϊστὶ Βηθζαθά, πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα. 3 ἐν ταύταις κατέκειτο πλῆθος τῶν ἀσθενούντων, τυφλῶν, χωλῶν, ξηρῶν. 4-5 ἦν δέ τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ τριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ: 6 τοῦτον ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς κατακείμενον, καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει, λέγει αὐτῷ, θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; 7 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ ἀσθενῶν, κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω ἵνα ὅταν ταραχθῇ τὸ ὕδωρ βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν: ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἔρχομαι ἐγὼ ἄλλος πρὸ ἐμοῦ καταβαίνει. 8 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει. 9 καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρεν τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει. ἦν δὲ σάββατον ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 10 ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ, σάββατόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐκ ἔξεστίν σοι ἆραι τὸν κράβαττόν σου. 11 ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς, ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, ἆρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει. 12 ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν, τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ εἰπών σοι, ἆρον καὶ περιπάτει; 13 ὁ δὲ ἰαθεὶς οὐκ ᾔδει τίς ἐστιν, ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐξένευσεν ὄχλου ὄντος ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.
1. After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3. In these day a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5. And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6. When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he said to him, Will you be made whole? 7. The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steps down before me. 8. Jesus said to him, Rise, take up your bed, and walk. 9. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. 10. The Jews therefore said to him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for you to carry your bed. 11. He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said to me, Take up your bed, and walk. 12. Then asked they him, What man is that which said to you, Take up your bed, and walk? 13. And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.

Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Post miraculum in Galilaea factum, inde Hierosolymam redit; unde dicitur post haec erat dies festus Iudaeorum, et ascendit Iesus Hierosolymam. AUG. After the miracle in Galilee, He returns to Jerusalem: After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Mihi videtur quod erat dies festus Pentecostes. Ascendit autem Iesus Hierosolymam semper in diebus festis, ut cum eis dies festos faciens non videatur legi contrarius, et ob hoc multitudinem simplicem per signa et doctrinam attrahat: maxime enim in diebus festis qui iuxta positi erant, concurrebant. Sequitur est autem Hierosolymis probatica piscina, quae cognominatur Hebraice Bethsaida, quinque porticus habens. CHRYS. The feast of Pentecost. Jesus always went up to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, that it might be seen that He was not an enemy to, but an observer of, the Law. And it gave Him the opportunity of impressing the simple multitude by miracles and teaching: as great numbers used then to collect from the neighboring towns. Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep-market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having Jive porches.
Alcuinus: Probaton Graece, ovis dicitur; probatica ergo piscina pecuaria dicitur, ubi sacerdotes cadavera hostiarum abluebant. ALCUIN. The pool by the sheep-market, is the place where the priest washed the animals that were going to be sacrificed.
Chrysostomus: Decebat quidem Baptisma dari peccata purgans, cuius imago praescripta fuit in piscina et in aliis pluribus. Et primum quidem dedit Deus aquam expurgantem corporum sordes et inquinationes non existentes, sed opinatas, puta ea quae a funere, et quae a lepra, et quae ab aliis talibus; deinde infirmitates diversas per aquas facit solvi; unde sequitur in his iacebat multitudo magna languentium, caecorum, claudorum, aridorum expectantium aquae motum. Volens enim Deus propinquius adducere ad Baptismi donum, non adhuc inquinamenta solum mundat, sed etiam aegritudines sanat: sicut enim ministri qui prope regem sunt, his qui sunt a longe clariores sunt; ita et in figuris fit. Non autem simpliciter sanabat aquarum natura; semper enim hoc fieret; sed in Angeli descensione; unde sequitur Angelus autem domini descendebat secundum tempus in piscinam, et movebatur aqua. Sic enim et in baptizatis non simpliciter aqua operatur; sed cum spiritus sancti acceperit gratiam, tunc omnia solvit peccata. Angelus enim descendens turbabat aquam, et sanativam imponebat virtutem; ut discant Iudaei quoniam multo magis Angelorum dominus omnes aegritudines animae sanare potest. Sed tunc quidem infirmitas impedimentum volenti curari fiebat; subditur enim et qui prior descendisset in piscinam post motionem aquae, sanus fiebat a quacumque detinebatur infirmitate. Nunc autem unusquisque accedere potest: non enim Angelus est qui turbat aquam, sed Angelorum dominus, qui omnia operatur. Sed etsi orbis terrarum universus veniat, gratia non consumitur, sed similis manet: sicut enim solares radii per unamquamque illuminant diem, et non consumuntur, neque a multa largitione minor fit solis lux; ita et multo amplius spiritus sancti actio in nullo minuitur a multitudine eorum qui potiuntur ea. Hoc autem fiebat, scilicet ut unus tantum post motionem aquae sanaretur; ut qui didicerant quoniam in aqua aegritudines corporis sanabantur, in hoc per multum tempus exercitati, facile crederent quod et aegritudines animae aqua sanare potest. CHRYS. This pool was one among many types of that baptism, which was to purge away sin. First God enjoined water for the cleansing from the filth of the body, and from those defilements, which were not real, but legal, e.g. those from death, or leprosy, and the like. Afterwards infirmities were healed by water, as we read: In these (the porches) lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. This was a nearer approximation to the gift of baptism, when not only defilements are cleansed, but sicknesses healed. Types are of various ranks, just as in a court, some officers are nearer to the prince, others farther off. The water, however did not heal by virtue of its own natural properties, (for if so the effect would have followed uniformly,) but by the descent of an Angel: For all Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water. In the same way, in Baptism, water does not act simply as water, but receives first the grace of the Holy Spirit, by means of which it cleanses us from all our sins. And the Angel troubled the water, and imparted a healing virtue to it, in order to prefigure to the Jews that far greater power of the Lord of the Angels, of healing the diseases of the soul. But then their infirmities prevented their applying the cure; for it follows, Whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. But now every one may attain this blessing, for it is not an Angel which troubles the water, but the Lord of Angels, which works every where. Though the whole world come, grace fails not, but remains as full as ever; like the sun’s rays which give light all day, and every day, and yet are not spent. The sun’s light is not diminished by this bountiful expenditure: no more is the influence of the Holy Spirit by the largeness of its outpourings. Not more than one could be cured at the pool; God’s design being to put before men’s minds, and oblige them to dwell upon, the healing power of water; that from the effect of water on the body, they might believe more readily its power on the soul.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Plus est autem quod Christus vitia sanavit animarum, quam quod sanavit languores corporum mortuorum. Sed quia ipsa anima non eum noverat, a quo sananda erat, et oculos habebat in carne, unde facta corporalia videret, et nondum habebat in corde, unde Deum latenter cognosceret, fecit quod videri poterat, ut sanaretur unde videri non poterat. Ingressus est locum ubi iacebat multitudo languentium, de quibus elegit unum ut sanaret, de quo subditur erat autem quidam homo ibi triginta et octo annos habens in infirmitate sua. AUG. It was a greater act in Christ, to heal the diseases of the soul, than the sicknesses of the perishable body. But as the soul itself did not know its Restorer, as it had eyes in the flesh to discern visible things, but not in the heart wherewith to know God; our Lord performed cures which could be seen, that He might afterwards work cures which could not be seen. He went to the place, where day a multitude of sick. out of whom He chose one to heal: And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Non autem confestim eum a principio sanavit; sed primum eum familiarem sibi fecit, per interrogationem futurae fidei faciens viam. Non autem expetit fidem, ut in caecis fecit, dicens: creditis quia possum hoc facere? Quia hic nondum noverat eum manifeste quis esset. Nam alii quidem ex aliis eius virtutem cognoscentes, convenienter haec audiebant; alii vero nondum eum cognoscentes, sed per signa eum cognituri, post miracula requiruntur de fide; unde sequitur hunc cum vidisset Iesus iacentem, et cognovisset quia multum iam tempus haberet, dicit ei: vis sanus fieri? Non hoc quaerit ut discat (hoc enim superfluum esset), sed ut ostenderet illius patientiam, qui triginta et octo annos habens, per unumquemque annum eripi ab aegritudine expectans, assidebat, et non desistebat; et ut cognoscamus propter quam causam dimittens alios, ad hunc venit. Et non dicit: vis, te curabo? Nondum enim aliquid magnum imaginabatur ille de Christo. Non autem turbatus est ad interrogationem, neque dixit: iniuriari mihi venisti, quando interrogas si volo sanus fieri; sed mansuete respondet; sequitur enim respondit ei languidus: domine, hominem non habeo, ut cum turbata fuerit aqua, mittat me in piscinam; dum venio enim ego, alius ante me descendit. Non noverat quis esset qui interrogabat, neque quod curaturus esset eum; opinabatur autem fortasse utilem sibi fore Christum ad mittendum eum in aquam. Sed Christus ostendit quod verbo omnia potest facere; unde sequitur dicit ei Iesus: surge, tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. CHRYS. He did not, however, proceed immediately to heal him, but first tried by conversation to bring him into a believing state of mind. Not that He required faith in the first instance, as He did from the blind man, saying, Believe you that I am able to do this? for the lame man could not well know who He was. Persons who in different ways had had the means of knowing Him, were asked this question, and properly so. But there were some who did not and could not know Him yet, but would be made to know Him by His miracles afterwards. And in their case the demand for faith is reserved till after those miracles have taken place: When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been a long time in that case, He said to him, Will you be made whole? He does not ask this question for His own information, (this were unnecessary,) but to bring to light the great patience of the man, who for thirty and eight years had sat year after year by the place, in the hope of being cured; which sufficiently explains why Christ passed by the others, and went to him. And He does not say, Do you wish Me to heal you? for the man had not as yet any idea that He was so great a Person. Nor on the other hand did the lame man suspect any mockery in the question, to make him take offense, and say, Have you come to vex me, by asking me if I would be made whole; but he answered mildly, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool; but while I am coming, another steps down before me. He had no idea as yet that the Person who put this question to him would heal him, but thought that Christ might probably be of use in putting him into the water. But Christ’s word is sufficient, Jesus said to him, Rise, take up your bed, and walk.
Augustinus: Tria dixit: sed surge, non operis imperium fuit, sed operatio sanitatis; sano autem duo imperavit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula. AUG. Three distinct biddings. Rise, however, is not a command, but the conferring of the cure. Two commands were given upon his cure, take up your bed, and walk.
Chrysostomus: Intuere divinae sapientiae superabundantiam. Non solum sanat, sed et lectum portare iubet: ut et credibile faceret miraculum, et nullus existimet phantasiam esse quod factum est. Non enim, nisi certissime et vehementer compacta essent membra, lectulum ferre possent. Audiens autem languidus quoniam cum potestate et velut iubens dixit surge, tolle grabatum tuum, non derisit dicens: Angelus descendit, et turbat aquam, et solum unum curat, tu autem homo existens ex solo praecepto speras te magis Angelis posse? Sed audivit et non discredidit ei qui iussit, et sanus factus est; unde sequitur et statim sanus factus est homo, et sustulit grabatum suum, et ambulabat. CHRYS. Behold the richness of the Divine Wisdom. He not only heals, but bids him carry his bed also. This was to show the cure was really miraculous, and not a mere effect of the imagination; for the man’s limbs must have become quite sound and compact, to allow him to take up his bed. The impotent man again did not deride and say, The Angel comes down, and troubles the water, and he only cures one each time; do You, who are a mere man, think that you can do more than an Angel? On the contrary, he heard, believed Him who bade him, and was made whole: And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked.
Beda: Multum quippe inter sanationem domini, et quae a medicis infertur, distare probatur: haec videlicet voce iubentis, et mox impletur; illa vero per multa temporis intervalla aliquoties perficitur. BEDE; There is a wide difference between our Lord’s mode of healing, and a physician’s. He acts by His word, and acts immediately: the other’s requires a long time for its completion.
Chrysostomus: Igitur mirabile quidem est hoc; quae autem sequentur multo maiora erunt: nam in initio quidem nullo molestante suaderi non ita mirabile est, sicut quod post insanientibus Iudaeis et accusantibus, Christo obedivit, ut ostendit Evangelista consequenter, dicens erat autem sabbatum in illo die. Dicunt ergo Iudaei illi qui sanatus fuerat: sabbatum est; non licet tibi tollere grabatum tuum. CHRYS. This was wonderful, but what follows more so. As yet he had no opposition to face. It is made more wonderful when we see him obeying Christ afterwards in spite of the rage and railing of the Jews: And on the same day was the sabbath. The Jews therefore said to him that was cured, It is the sabbath day, it is not lawful for you to carry your bed.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Non calumniabantur domino quia sanum fecerat sabbato, quia eis respondere posset, quia si cuiusquam iumentum in puteum cecidisset utique die sabbati erueret illud et salvaret; sed ei qui portabat grabatum suum; quasi dicant: si sanitas non erat differenda, numquid et opus fuerat imperandum? Sed ille auctorem sanitatis suae obiciebat calumniatoribus; unde sequitur respondit eis: qui me sanum fecit, ille mihi dixit: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula; quasi dicat: quare non acciperem iussionem a quo acceperam sanitatem? AUG. They did not charge our Lord with healing on the sabbath, for He would have replied that if an ox or an ass of theirs had fallen into a pit, would not they have taken it out on the sabbath day: but they addressed the man as he was carrying his bed, as if to say, Even if the healing could not be delayed, why enjoin the work? He shields himself under the authority of his Healer: He that made me whole, the Same said to me, Take up your bed, and walk: meaning, Why should not I receive a command, if I received a cure from Him?
Chrysostomus: Nimirum si malignari vellet, poterat dicere: si crimen est, accusate eum qui iussit, et deponam lectulum; sed et curationem utique occultasset; etenim sciebat non ita eos id reprehendere ex sabbati solutione, sicut ex infirmitatis sanatione. Sed neque hoc occultavit, neque veniam petiit; sed clara voce beneficium confessus est. Illi vero maligne interrogaverunt; unde subditur interrogaverunt ergo eum: quis est ille homo qui dixit tibi: tolle grabatum tuum, et ambula? Non dicunt: quis est qui fecit te sanum? Sed in medium inducunt id quod transgressio aestimabatur. Sequitur is autem qui sanus fuerat effectus, nesciebat quis esset. Iesus autem declinavit a turba constituta in loco. Et primum quidem ut eo absente testimonium insuspicabile fieret; qui enim adeptus fuerat sanitatem, idoneus erat beneficii testis: demum ut non plus faceret furorem illorum accendi. Solus enim visus eius cui invidetur, non parvam invidentibus immittit scintillam. Propterea discedens permisit ab ipsis suum factum examinari. Quidam aestimant hunc paralyticum esse eum qui in Matthaeo positus est; sed non est: ille enim multos habebat sui curam habentes, et eum ferentes; hic autem nullum. Sed et locus utrorumque diversus est. CHRYS. Had he been inclined to deal treacherously, he might have said, If it is a crime, accuse Him Who commanded it, and I will lay down my bed. And he would have concealed his cure, knowing, as he did, that their real cause of offense was not the breaking of the Sabbath, but the miracle. But he neither concealed it, nor asked for pardon, but boldly confessed the cure. They then ask spitefully; What man is that who said to you, Take up your bed, and walk. They do not say, Who is it, who made you whole? but only mention the offense. It follows, And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had conveyed Himself away, a multitude being in that place. This He had done first, because the man who had been made whole, was the best witness of the cure, and could give his testimony with less suspicion in our Lord’s absence; and secondly, that the fury of men might not be excited more than was necessary. For the mere sight of the object of envy, is no small incentive to envy. For these reasons He departed, and left them to examine the fact for themselves. Some are of opinion, that this is the same with the one who had the palsy, whom Matthew mentions. But he is not. For the latter had many to wait upon, and carry him, whereas this man had none. And the place where the miracle was performed, is different.
Augustinus: Si quidem mediocri corde et humano ingenio consideremus hoc miraculum facientem, quod ad potestatem pertinet, non magnum aliquid fecit; et quod ad benignitatem, parum fecit. Tot iacebant, et unus curatus est, cum posset uno verbo omnes erigere. Quid ergo intelligendum est, nisi quia potestas illa et bonitas magis agebat quid animae in factis eius pro salute sempiterna intelligerent, quam quid pro temporali salute corpora mererentur? In illis enim factis quicquid temporaliter sanatum est, in membris mortalibus in fine defecit; anima quae credidit, ad vitam aeternam transitum fecit. Piscina ista et aqua illa populum mihi videtur significasse Iudaeorum: significari enim populus nomine aquarum, aperte nobis indicat Apocalypsis Ioannis. AUG. Judging on low and human notions of this miracle, it is not at all a striking display of power, and only a moderate one of goodness. Of so many, who lay sick, only one was healed; though, had He chosen, He could have restored them all by a single word. How must we account for this? By supposing that His power and goodness were asserted more for imparting a knowledge of eternal salvation to the soul, than working a temporal cure on the body. That which received the temporal cure was certain to decay at last, when death arrived: whereas the soul which believed passed into life eternal. The pool and the water seem to me to signify the Jewish people: for John in the Apocalypse obviously uses water to express people.
Beda: Bene autem piscina probatica fuisse describitur. Ille enim populus ovis nomine significatur, secundum illud: nos populus tuus, et oves gregis tui. BEDE. It is fitly described as a sheep pool. By sheep are meant people, according to the passage, We are your people, and the sheep of your pasture.
Augustinus: Aqua ergo illa, idest populus ille, quinque libris Moysi tamquam quinque porticibus claudebatur; sed illi libri prodebant languidos, non sanabant: lex enim peccatores convincebat, non absolvebat. AUG. The water then, i.e. the people, was enclosed within five porches, i.e. the five books of Moses. But those books only betrayed the impotent, and did not recover them; that is to say, the Law convicted the sinner, but did not absolve him.
Beda: Denique multa genera languentium in eadem iacuerunt: caeci scilicet qui scientiae lumine carent; claudi, qui ad ea quae iubentur implenda, vires non habent; aridi, qui supernae dilectionis pinguedine carent. BEDE. Lastly, many kinds of impotent folk lay near the pool: the blind, i.e. those who are without the light of knowledge; the lame, i.e. those who have not strength to do what they are commanded; the withered, i.e. those who have not the marrow of heavenly love.
Augustinus: Venit autem Christus ad populum Iudaeorum, et faciendo magna, docendo utilia, turbavit peccatores, idest aquam, praesentia sua, et excitavit ad passionem suam. Sed latens turbavit: si enim cognovissent, nunquam gloriae dominum crucifixissent. Subito enim videbatur aqua turbata, et a quo turbabatur non videbatur. Descendere ergo in aquam turbatam, hoc est humiliter credere in domini passionem. Ibi sanatur unus, significans Ecclesiae unitatem; postea quisquis veniret non sanabatur; quia quisquis praeter unitatem fuerit, sanari non poterit. Vae illis qui oderunt unitatem, et partem sibi faciunt in hominibus. Habebat autem triginta et octo annos in infirmitate qui sanatus est: hic enim numerus ad languorem pertinet magis quam ad sanitatem. Quadragenarius enim numerus sacratus nobis in quadam perfectione commendatur: quia lex in decem praeceptis data est, et praedicanda erat per totum mundum, qui quatuor partibus commendatur: denarius autem per quatuor multiplicatus ad quadragenarium pervenit. Vel quia per Evangelium, quod quatuor libros habet, impletur lex. Si ergo quadragenarius numerus habet perfectionem legis, et lex non impletur nisi in gemino praecepto caritatis, quid miraris, quia languebat qui quadraginta, minus duos, habebat? Necessarius erat illi homo ad sanitatem, sed homo ille qui et Deus est: et quia illum iacentem duobus minus invenit, duo quaedam iubendo, quod minus erat implevit. In duobus enim domini iussis duo praecepta significata sunt caritatis. Dei dilectio prior est ordine praecipiendi, proximi autem dilectio prior est ordine faciendi. Dicit ergo tolle grabatum tuum; quasi diceret: cum esses languidus, portabat te proximus tuus: sanus factus es, porta proximum tuum. Dicit etiam ambula. Sed quo iter agis nisi ad dominum Deum tuum? AUG. So then Christ came to the Jewish people, and by means of mighty works, and profitable lessons, troubled the sinners, i.e. the water, and the stirring continued till He brought on His own passion. But He troubled the water, unknown to the world. For had they known Him, they would not hare crucified the Lord of glory. But the troubling of the water came on all at once, and it was not seen who troubled it. Again, to go down into the troubled water, is to believe humbly on our Lord’s passion. Only one was healed, to signify the unity of the Church: whoever came afterwards was not healed, to signify that whoever is out of this unity cannot be healed. Wo to them who hate unity, and raise sects. Again, he who was healed had had his infirmity thirty and eight years: this being a number which belongs to sickness, rather than to health. The number forty has a sacred character with us, and is significative of perfection. For the Law was given in Ten Commandments, and was to be preached throughout the whole world, which consists of four parts; and four multiplied into ten, make up the number forty. And the Law too is fulfilled by the Gospel, which is written in four books. So then if the number forty possesses the perfectness of the Law, and nothing fulfills the Law, except the twofold precept of love, why wonder at the impotence of him, who was two less than forty? Some man was necessary for his recovery; but it was a man who was God. He found the man falling short by the number two, and therefore gave two commandments, to fill up the deficiency. For the two precepts of our Lord signify love; the love of God being first in order of command, the love of our neighbor, in order of performance. Take up your bed, our Lord said, meaning, When you were impotent, your neighbor carried you; now you are made whole, carry your neighbor. And walk; but whither, except to the Lord your God.
Beda: Quid enim est dicere surge et ambula, nisi a torpore et ignavia, in quibus prius iacebas, erigere, et in bonis operibus proficere stude? Tolle grabatum tuum, idest proximum tuum, a quo portaris, et ipse patienter tolera. BEDE. What mean the words, Arise, and walk; except that you should raise yourself from your torpor and indolence, and study to advance in good works. Take up your bed, i.e. your neighbor by which you are carried, and bear him patiently thyself.
Augustinus: Porta ergo eum cum quo ambulas, ut ad eum pervenias cum quo manere desideras. Ille autem nondum Iesum noverat, quia et nos credimus in eum quem non videmus; et ut non videatur declinat a turba. Quadam solitudine intentionis videtur Deus; turba strepitum habet; visio ista secretum desiderat. AUG. Carry him then with whom you walk, that you may come to Him with Whom you desire to abide. As yet however he wist not who Jesus was; just as we too believe in Him though we see Him not. Jesus again does not wish to be seen, but conveys Himself out of the crowd. It is in a kind of solitude of the mind, that God is seen: the crowd is noisy; this vision requires stillness.


Lectio 2
14 μετὰ ταῦτα εὑρίσκει αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἴδε ὑγιὴς γέγονας: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε, ἵνα μὴ χεῖρόν σοί τι γένηται. 15 ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὸν ὑγιῆ. 16 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ. 17 ὁ δὲ [Ἰησοῦς] ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς, ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται, κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι. 18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν, ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.
14. Afterward Jesus finds him in the temple, and said to him, Behold, you are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come to you. 15. The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17. But Jesus answered them, My Father works hitherto, and I work. 18. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Curatus homo non secessit ad nundinas, neque voluptati aut vanae gloriae dedit seipsum; sed in templo conversabatur, quod maximae religionis est signum; unde dicitur postea invenit eum Iesus in templo. CHRYS. The man, when healed, did not proceed to the market place, or give himself up to pleasure or vain glory, but, which was a great mark of religion, went to the temple: Afterward Jesus finds him in the temple.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Dominus quidem Iesus et in turba eum videbat, et in templo. Ille autem languidus Iesum in turba non agnoscit, in templo agnoscit, in loco sacrato. AUG. The Lord Jesus saw him both in the crowd, and in the temple. The impotent man does not recognize Jesus in the crowd; but in the temple, being a sacred place, he does.
Alcuinus: Quia si gratiam conditoris cognoscere volumus, et ad eius visionem venire, fugienda est turba cogitationum et affectuum pravorum; declinanda sunt pravorum conventicula, fugiendum est ad templum, ut nosipsos templum Dei studeamus facere, quos Deus invisere et in quibus manere dignetur. Sequitur et dixit illi: ecce sanus factus es; iam noli amplius peccare, ne deterius tibi aliquid contingat. ALCUIN. For; if we would know our Maker’s grace, and attain to the sight of Him, we must avoid the crowd of evil thoughts and affections, convey ourselves out of the congregation of the wicked, and flee to the temple; in order that we may make ourselves the temple of God, souls whom God will visit, and in whom He will deign to dwell. And (He) said to him, Behold, you are made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.
Chrysostomus: Ubi prius discimus quod ex peccatis ei nata est haec aegritudo: quia enim saepius animam in nobis aegrotantem insensibiliter habemus, corpus autem, etsi parvam susceperit laesionem, omne facimus studium, ut ab infirmitate liberemur, propterea Deus punit corpus pro his quae anima deliquit; secundo vero quod verus est Gehennae sermo; tertio quod longum est et infinitum supplicium. Dicunt enim quidam: numquid quia in brevi temporis momento adulteratus sum, immortaliter crucior? Vide quod hic tanto tempore pro peccatis cruciabatur: non enim temporis mensura peccata iudicantur, sed ipsa delictorum natura. Cum his autem et illud discimus, quod si gravem sustineamus poenam pro prioribus peccatis, deinde in eadem inciderimus, graviora patiemur; et hoc decenter: qui enim neque supplicio factus est melior, ut insensibilis de reliquo et contemptor, ad maius ducetur tormentum. Si autem hic non omnes pro peccatis torquentur, non confidamus: nihil enim nos hic pati pro peccatis, signum est maioris illic futuri supplicii. Non autem omnes aegritudines sunt ex peccatis, sed plures. Quaedam enim et a pigritia fiunt, quaedam propter probationem, sicut in Iob. Sed propter quid paralytico huic Christus de peccatis mentionem facit? Quidam huic paralytico detrahentes, dicunt eum Christi fuisse accusatorem, et propter hoc haec audisse: quid igitur dicent de paralytico qui est apud Matthaeum? Etenim et illi dictum est: dimittuntur tibi peccata tua. Neque etiam Christus hunc incusat de praeteritis, sed ad futurum eum munit solum. Alios igitur curans, peccatorum non meminit: quia his paralyticis ex peccatis aegritudines sunt factae, aliis autem ex infirmitate naturali. Vel per hos reliquos omnes admonet. Cum his autem et illud est dicere, quoniam multam vidit inesse animae huius patientiam, et ut valentem suscipere admonitionem eum admonet. Tribuit autem signum ei propriae deitatis: dicendo enim non amplius pecces, ostendit se scire omnia quae ab eo facta erant delicta. CHRYS. Here we learn in the first place, that his disease was the consequence of his sins. We are apt to bear with great indifference the diseases of our souls; but, should the body suffer ever so little hurt, we have recourse to the most energetic remedies. Wherefore God punishes the body for the offenses of the soul. Secondly, we learn, that there is really a Hell. Thirdly, that it is a place of lasting and infinite punishment. Some say indeed, Because we have corrupted ourselves for a short time, shall we be tormented eternally? But see how long this man was tormented for his sins. Sin is not to be measured by length of time, but by the nature of the sin itself. And besides this we learn, that if, after undergoing a heavy punishment for our sins, we fall into them again, we shall incur another and a heavier punishment still: and justly; for one, who has undergone punishment, and has not been made better by it, proves himself to be a hardened person, and a despiser; and, as such, deserving of still greater torments. Nor let it embolden us, that we do not see all punished for their offenses here: for if men do not suffer for their offenses here, it is only a sign that their punishment will be the greater hereafter. Our diseases however do not always arise from sins; but only most commonly so. For some spring from other lax habits: some are sent for the sake of trial, as Job’s were. But why does Christ make mention of this palsied man’s sins? Some say, because he had been an accuser of Christ. And shall we say the same of the man afflicted with the palsy? For he too was told, Your sins are forgiven you? The truth is, Christ does not find fault with the man here for his past sins, but only warns him against future. In heeling others, however, He makes no mention of sins at all: so that it would seem to be the case that the diseases of these men had arisen from their sins; whereas those of the others had come from natural causes only. Or perhaps through these, He admonishes all the rest. Or he may have admonished this men, knowing his great patience of mind, and that he w would bear an admonition. It is a disclosure too of His divinity, for He implies in saying, Sin no more, that He knew what sins He had committed.
Augustinus: Nunc autem ille, postea quam vidit Iesum, et cognovit eum auctorem salutis suae, non fuit piger in evangelizando quem viderat; unde sequitur abiit ille homo, et nuntiavit Iudaeis quia Iesus erat qui fecit eum sanum. AUG. Now that the man had seen Jesus, and knew Him to be the author of his recovers, ho was not slow in preaching Him to others: The man departed, and told the, Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole.
Chrysostomus: Non ita insensibilis erat ut post tantum beneficium et admonitionem maligna mente hoc dicat. Si enim detrahere vellet, sanitatem tacens, transgressionem dixisset; sed hoc non fecit: non enim dixit, quoniam Iesus est qui dixit tolle grabatum tuum, quod videbatur Iudaeis crimen esse; sed dixit: quoniam Iesus est qui me sanum fecit. CHRYS. He was not so insensible to the benefit, and the advice he had received, as to have any malignant aim in speaking this news. Had it been done to disparage Christ, he could have concealed the cure, and put forward the offense. But he does not mention Jesus’ saying, Take up your bed, which was an offense in the eyes of the Jews; but told the Jews that it was Jesus which had made him whole.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sic igitur ille annuntiabat, et illi insaniebant; unde sequitur propterea persequebantur Iudaei Iesum, quia hoc faciebat in sabbato. Manifestum enim opus corporale factum erat ante oculos Iudaeorum, non sanitas corporis, sed deportatio grabati, quae non videbatur ita necessaria quemadmodum sanitas. Aperte ergo dicit dominus, sacramentum sabbati, et signum observandi unius diei ad tempus datum esse Iudaeis; impletionem vero ipsam sacramenti in illo venisse, cum sequitur Iesus autem respondit eis: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quasi dicat: nolite putare quia sabbato ita requievit pater meus ut ex illo non operetur; sed sicut ipse nunc operatur sine labore, operor et ego. Sed ideo dictum est, Deum requievisse, quia iam creaturam nullam condebat postquam perfecta sunt omnia. Quietem vero propterea appellavit Scriptura, ut nos admoneret post bona opera quieturos. Et sicut Deus postquam fecit hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam, et perfecit omnia opera sua bona valde, requievit septimo die; sic et tibi requiem non speres, nisi cum redieris ad similitudinem in qua factus es, quam peccato perdidisti; et nisi cum bona fueris operatus. AUG. This announcement enraged them, And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because He had done these things on the sabbath day. A plain bodily work had been done before their eyes, distinct from the healing of the man’s body, and which could not have been necessary, even if healing was; viz. the carrying of the bed. Wherefore our Lord openly says, that the sacrament of the Sabbath, the sign of observing one day out of seven, was only a temporary institution, which had attained its fulfillment in Him: But Jesus answered them, my Father works hitherto , and I work: as if He said, Do not suppose that My Father rested on the Sabbath in such a sense, as that from that time forth, He has ceased from working; for He works up to this time, though without labor, and so work I. God’s resting means only that He made no other creature, after the creation. The Scripture calls it rest, to remind us of the rest we shall enjoy after a life of good works here. And as God only when He had made man in His own image and similitude, and finished all His works, and seen that they were very good, rested on the seventh day: so do you expect no rest, except you return to the likeness in which you were made, but which you have lost by sin; i.e. unless you do good works.
Augustinus super Genesim: Dici ergo probabiliter potest, ad servandum sabbatum Iudaeis fuisse praeceptum in umbra futuri, quae spiritualem requiem significaret; quam Deus exemplo quietis suae fidelibus bona opera facientibus arcana significatione pollicebatur. AUG. It may be said then, that the observance of the sabbath was imposed on the Jews, as the shadow of something to come; viz. that spiritual rest, which God, by the figure of His own rest promised to all who should perform good works.
Augustinus super Ioannem: Erit enim sabbatum huius saeculi cum transierint sex aetates, quasi sex dies saeculi: tunc enim ventura est requies, quae promittitur sanctis. AUG. There will be a sabbath of the world, when the six ages, i.e. the six days, as it were, of the world, have passed: then will come that rest which is promised to the saints.
Augustinus super Genesim: Cuius etiam quietis ipse dominus Iesus mysterium sua sepultura confirmavit: ipso quippe die sabbati requievit in sepulchro, postquam sexto die consummavit opera sua, quando ait: consummatum est. Quid ergo mirum si Deus istum diem, quo erat Christus in sepultura quieturus, volens etiam hoc modo praenuntiare, ab operibus suis in uno die requievit, deinceps operaturus ordinem saeculorum? Potest etiam intelligi, Deum requievisse a condendis generibus creaturae, quia ultra iam non condidit aliqua genere nova. Deinceps autem usque nunc et ultra operatur eorumdem generum administrationem, quae tunc instituta sunt, non ut ipso saltem die septimo potentia eius a caeli et terrae omniumque rerum quas condiderat gubernatione cessaret; alioquin continuo dilaberentur: creatoris namque potentia causa est abstinendi omni creaturae, quae ab eis quae creata sunt regendis si aliquando cessaret, simul et eorum cessaret species, omnisque natura concideret. Neque enim sicut structuram aedium cum fabricaverit quis abscedit, atque illo cessante stat opus eius; ita mundus vix ictu oculi stare potest, si ei Deus regimen suum subtraxerit. Proinde quod dominus ait pater meus usque modo operatur, continuationem quamdam operis eius, quae universam creaturam continet atque administrat, ostendit. Aliter enim posset intelligi, si diceret: et nunc operatur; ubi non esset necesse ut operis continuationem acciperemus. Aliter autem cogit intelligi, cum ait usque nunc, ex illo scilicet quo cuncta cum conderet operatus est. AUG. The mystery of which rest the Lord Jesus Himself sealed by His burial: fore He rested in His sepulcher on the sabbath, having on the sixth day finished all His work, inasmuch as He said, It is finished. What wonder then that God, to prefigure the day on which Christ was to rest in the grave, rested one day from His works, afterwards to carry on the work of governing the world. We may consider too that God, when He rested, rested from the work of creation simply, i.e. made no more new kinds of creatures: but that from that time till now, He has been carrying on the government of those creatures. For His power, as respects the government of heaven and earth, and all the things that He had made, did not cease on the seventh day: they would have perished immediately, without His government: because the power of the Creator is that on which the existence of every creature depends. If it ceased to govern, every species of creation would cease to exist: and all nature would go to nothing. For the world is not like a building, which stands after the architect has left it; it could not stand the twinkling of an eye, if God withdrew His governing hand. Therefore when our Lord says, My Father works hitherto, he means the continuation of the work; the holding together, and governing of the creation. It might have been different, had He said, Works even now. This would not have conveyed the sense of confirming. As it is we find it, Until now; i.e. from the time of the creation downwards.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ergo tamquam diceret Iudaeis: quid expectatis ut non operer sabbato? Sabbati dies vobis ad significationem meam praeceptus est. Opera Dei attenditis, per me facta sunt omnia. Operatus est pater lucem; sed dixit ut fieret. Si dixit: verbo operatus est, et verbum eius ego sum. Pater meus et tunc operatus est cum fecit mundum, et usque nunc operatur cum regit mundum: ergo et per me fecit cum fecit, et per me regit cum regit. AUG. He says then, as it were, to the Jews, Why think you that I should not work on the sabbath? The sabbath day was instituted as a type of Me. You observe the works of God: by Me all things were made. The Father made light, but He spoke, that it might be made. If He spoke, then He made it by the Word; and I am His Word. My Father worked when He made the world, and He works until now, governing the world: and as He made the world by Me, when He made it, so He governs it by Me, now He governs it.
Chrysostomus: Et quidem Christus, cum discipulos excusare oportebat, David conservum eorum in medium ferebat; quando vero de seipso erat accusatio, ad patrem refugit. Considerandum etiam, quod neque ut homo solum excusat, sed neque ut Deus solum: sed quandoque hoc, quandoque illo modo. Volebat enim utrumque credi, et condescensionis dispensationem et deitatis dignitatem. Unde hic aequalitatem sui ad patrem ostendit, et in dicendo eum patrem singulariter (dicit enim pater meus) et in agendo eadem illi (dicit enim et ego operor); unde sequitur propterea ergo magis quaerebant eum Iudaei interficere, quia non solum solvebat sabbatum, sed et patrem suum dicebat Deum. CHRYS. Christ defended His disciples, by putting forward the example of their fellow-servant David: but He defends Himself by a reference to the Father. We may observe too that He does not defend Himself as man, nor yet purely as God, but sometimes as one, sometimes as the other; wishing both to be believed, both the dispensation of His humiliation, and the dignity of His Godhead; wherefore He shows His equality to the Father, both by calling Him His Father emphatically. (My Father), and by declaring that He does the same things, that the Father does, (And I work). Therefore, it follows, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father.
Augustinus: Non quomodocumque, sed quia aequalem se fecit Deo: nam omnes dicimus Deo: pater noster, qui es in caelis. Legimus et Iudaeos dixisse: cum tu sis pater noster. Ergo non hic irascebantur quia patrem suum dicebat Deum, sed quod longe alio modo quam homines. AUG. i.e. not in the secondary sense in which it is true of all of us, but as implying equality. For we all of us say to God, Our Father, Which art in heaven. And the Jews say, You are our Father. They were not angry then because He called God His Father, but because He called Him so in a sense different from men.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Dicendo enim pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor; quod ei esset aequalis voluit intelligi; consequens esse ostendens ut quoniam pater operatur, et filius operetur: quia pater sine filio non operatur. AUG. The words, My Father works hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father’s working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father does nothing without the Son.
Chrysostomus: Si vero non naturalis esset filius, nec eiusdem substantiae, haec excusatio maior accusatione esset. Non enim praefectus regalem legem transgrediens poterit effugere, si accusatus se excuset dicens, quoniam et rex solvit legem. Sed quia par est dignitas filii ad patrem, propterea perfecta excusatio est. Sicut igitur pater operans sabbato, absolutus est a crimine, ita et filius. CHRYS. Were He not the Son by nature, and of the same substance, this defense would be worse than the former accusation made. For no prefect could clear Himself from a transgression of the king’s law, by urging that the king broke it also. But, on the supposition of the Son’s equality to the Father, the defense is valid. It then follows, that as the Father worked on the Sabbath without doing wrong: the Son could do so likewise.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ecce intelligunt Iudaei quod non intelligunt Ariani: Ariani quippe inaequalem dicunt filium patri, et inde haeresis pulsat Ecclesiam. AUG. So, the Jews understood what the Arians do not. For the Arians say that the Son is not equal to the Father, and hence sprang up that heresy which afflicts the Church.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Qui vero nolunt cum bona mente hoc suscipere, dicunt quod Christus non fecit se aequalem Deo, sed Iudaei hoc suspicabantur; sed ad hoc per ea quae supra dicta sunt superveniamus. Manifestum enim est quod Iudaei persequebantur Christum, et quod solvebat sabbatum, et quod dicebat patrem suum Deum: unde et quod consequenter additur aequalem se faciens Deo, adhaeret praemissis in veritate. CHRYS. Those however who are not well-disposed to this doctrine, do not admit that Christ made Himself equal to the Father, but only that the Jews thought He did. But let us consider what has gone before. That the Jews persecuted Christ, and that He broke the sabbath, and said that God was His Father, is unquestionably true. That which immediately follows then from these premises, viz. His making Himself equal with God, is true also.
Hilarius de Trin: Expositio enim est Evangelistae causam demonstrantis cur dominum Iudaei interficere vellent. HILARY. The Evangelist here explains why the Jews wished to kill Him.
Chrysostomus: Et iterum, si ipse hoc ipsum volebat astruere, sed Iudaei hoc inaniter suspicabantur; non dimisisset dominus eorum mentem in errore, sed correxisset: neque enim Evangelista hoc tacuisset; sicut supra de eo quod dictum est: solvite templum hoc. CHRYS. And again, had it been that our Lord Himself did not mean this, but that the Jews misunderstood Him, He would not have overlooked their mistake. Nor would the Evangelist have omitted to remark upon it, as he does upon our Lord’s speech, Destroy this temple.
Augustinus: Non tamen Iudaei intellexerunt Christum esse filium Dei; sed intellexerunt in verbis Christi, quia talis commendaretur filius Dei quod aequalis esset Deo. Quia ergo nesciebant, talem tamen praedicari agnoscebant; ideo dicit aequalem se faciens Deo. Non autem ipse se faciebat aequalem, sed ille illum genuerat aequalem. AUG. The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that he was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal.

Lectio 3
19 ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα: ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. 20 ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.
19. Then answered Jesus and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for what things soever he does, these also does the Son likewise. 20. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.

Hilarius de Trin: Ad violati sabbati obiectum sibi reatum dixerat: pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor, ut usurpasse hoc ex auctoritate intelligeretur exempli; significans tamen hoc quod ipse ageret, patris opus esse intelligendum, quia ipse in se operaretur operante: et rursum adversum eam invidiam, quod se Deo aequasset paterni nominis usurpatione, volens et nativitatem confirmare, et naturae virtutem profiteri, respondit; unde dicitur respondit itaque Iesus, et dixit eis: amen, amen dico vobis: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. HILARY. He refers to the charge of violating the sabbath, brought against Him. My Father works hitherto, and I work; meaning that He had a precedent for claiming the right He did; and that what He did was in reality His Father’s doing, who acted in the Son. And to quiet the jealousy which had been raised, because by the use of His Father’s name He had made Himself equal with God, and to assert the excellency of His birth and nature, He says, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quidam qui Christianos se haberi volunt, Ariani haeretici dicentes ipsum filium Dei qui suscepit carnem, minorem esse quam pater est, capiunt ex his verbis causam calumniae, et respondent nobis: videtis quia dominus Iesus cum adverteret Iudaeos ex hoc moveri, quia patri Deo aequalem se faceret, talia verba subiunxit, ut se aequalem non esse monstraret: qui enim non potest, inquiunt, a se facere quidquam nisi quod viderit patrem facientem, utique minor est, non aequalis. Sed si Deus erat verbum, et est Deus maior et Deus minor, duos deos colimus, non unum Deum. AUG. Some who would be thought Christians, the Arian heretics, who say that the very Son of God who took our flesh upon Him, was inferior to the Father, take advantage of these words to throw discredit upon our doctrine, and say, You see that when our Lord perceived the Jews to be indignant, because He seemed to make Himself equal with God, He gave such an answer as showed that He was not equal. For they say, he who can do nothing but what he sees the Father do is not equal but inferior to the Father. But if there is a greater God, and a less God, (the Word being God,) we worship two Gods, and not one.
Hilarius: Ne igitur exaequatio illa per nomen naturamque filii fidem nativitatis auferret, ait filium a se nihil facere posse. HILARY. Lest then that assertion of His equality, which must belong to Him, as by Name and Nature the Son, might throw doubt upon His Nativity , He says that the Son can do nothing of Himself.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Tamquam diceret: quid scandalizati estis, quia patrem meum dixi Deum, et quia aequalem me feci Deo? Ita sum aequalis, ut ille me genuerit, non ut ille a me, sed ego ab illo sim. Filio hoc est esse quod posse. Quia ergo substantia filii de patre est, ideo potentia filii de patre est; quia ergo filius non est a se, ideo non potest a se. Sic ergo non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem: quia videre filii hoc est natum esse de patre; non alia visio est eius et alia substantia eius: totum quod est, de patre est. AUG. As if He said: Why are you offended that I called God My Father, and that I make Myself equal with God? I am equal, but equal in such a sense as is consistent with His having begotten Me; with My being from Him, not Him from Me. With the Son, being and power are one and the same thing. The Substance of the Son then being of the Father, the power of the Son is of tile Father also: and as the Son is not of Himself, so He can not of Himself. The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. His seeing and His being born of the Father are the same. His vision is not distinct from His Substance, but the whole together is of the Father.
Hilarius: Ut autem maneret salutaris in patre et filio confessionis nostrae ordo, naturam nativitatis ostendit, quae potestatem efficiendi non per incrementa indultarum ad unumquodque opus virium sumeret, sed de cognitione praesumeret; praesumeret autem non de aliquo operis corporalis exemplo ut quod prius pater faceret, id postea filius facturus esset; sed cum ex patre filius esset natus per virtutis ac naturae in se paternae conscientiam, nihil nisi quod patrem facientem vidisset, filium facere posse testatus est. Non enim corporalibus modis Deus videt; sed visus ei omnis in virtute naturae est. HILARY. That the wholesome order of our confession, i.e. that we believe in the Father and the Son, might remain, He shows the nature of His birth; viz. that He derived the power of acting not from au accessible of strength supplied for each work, but by His own knowledge in the first instance. And this knowledge He derived not from any particular visible precedents, as if what the Father had done, the Son could do afterwards; but that the Son being born of the Father, and consequently conscious of the Father’s virtue and nature within Him, could do nothing but what He saw the Father do: as he here testifies; God does not see by bodily organs, but by the virtue of His nature.
Augustinus de Trin: Hoc autem si propterea dictum acceperimus quia in forma accepta ex creatura minor est filius; consequens erit ut prior pater super aquas ambulaverit, et cetera quae filius in carne apparens inter homines fecit, ut possit filius ea facere. Quis autem vel delirus ista sentiat? AUG. If we understand this subordination of the Son to arise from the human nature, it will follow that the Father walked first upon the water, and did all the other things which the Son did in the flesh, in order that the Son might do them. Who can be so insane as to think this?
Augustinus super Ioan: Ambulatio tamen illa carnis supra mare a patre fiebat per filium. Quando enim caro ambulabat, et divinitas filii gubernabat, pater absens non erat, cum filius dicat: pater in me manens ipse facit opera. Cum ergo dixisset non potest filius a se facere quidquam, ne forte carnalis subreperet intellectus, ut faceret sibi homo quasi duos fabros, unum magistrum, alterum discipulum, ut quomodo ille fecit arcam, iste faciat alteram, secutus ait quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec et filius similiter facit. Non ait: quaecumque pater facit, et filius alia similia facit; sed: haec eadem. Mundum pater, mundum filius, mundum spiritus sanctus. Si unus Deus pater, et filius, et spiritus sanctus, unus mundus factus a patre per filium in spiritu sancto. Haec ergo eadem facit. Addit autem similiter, ne alius error in animo nasceretur. Videtur enim corpus hoc idem facere quod animus, sed non similiter: animus enim imperat corpori: corpus visibile est, animus invisibilis. Ut faceret aliquid servus, iubente domino fecit: idem ab utroque factum est; sed numquid similiter? Non ergo sic pater, et filius; sed haec eadem facit, et similiter facit; ut intelligamus simili potentia facere filium eadem ipsa quae facit pater. Aequalis igitur est patri filius. AUG. Yet that walking of the flesh upon the sea was done by the Father through the Son. For when the flesh walked, and the Divinity of the Son guided, the Father was not absent, as the Son Himself said below, The Father that dwells in Me, He does the works. He guards however against the carnal. interpretation of the words, The Son can do nothing of Himself. As if the case were like that of two artificers, master and disciple, one of whom made a chest, and the other made another like it, by adding, For whatsoever things he does, these do the Son likewise. He does not say, Whatsoever the Father does, the Son does other things like them, but the very same things. The Father made the world, the Son made the world, the Holy Ghost made the world. If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, it follows that one and the same world was made by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. Thus it is the very same thing that the Son does. He adds likewise, to prevent another error arising. For the body seems to do the same things with the mind, but it does not do them in a like way, inasmuch as the body is subject, the soul governing, the body visible, the soul invisible. When a slave does a thing at the command of his master, the same thing is done by both; but is it in a like way? Now in the Father and Son there is not this difference; they do the same things, and in a like way. Father and Son act with the same power; so that the Son is equal to the Father.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel aliter. Omnia et eadem ad ostendendam naturae virtutem locutus est. Est igitur natura eadem, cum eadem omnia posse naturae sit. Ubi vero similiter per filium omnia eadem fiunt, similitudo operum solitudinem operantis exclusit. Haec igitur est verae nativitatis et fidei nostrae intelligentia, quia sub una hac significatione testantur et similiter facta nativitatem, et eadem facta naturam. HILARY. Or thus; All things and the same, He says, to show the virtue of His nature, its being the same with God’s. That is the same nature, which can do all the same things. And as the Son does all the same things in a like way, the likeness of the works excludes the notion of the worker existing alone g. Thus we come to a true idea of the Nativity, as our faith receives it: the likeness of the works bearing witness to the Nativity, their sameness to the Nature.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Totum quod dicitur a semetipso non potest filius facere quidquam, intelligendum est quia nihil contrarium patri, nihil alienum ab eo facere potest. Ideo autem non dicit quoniam nihil contrarium facit, sed quoniam non potest facere, ut hinc ostendat indissimilitudinem et certitudinem parilitatis. Non enim imbecillitatem filii, sed multam eius virtutem ostendit hoc verbum. Sicut enim cum dicimus: impossibile est Deum peccare, non imbecillitatem eius accusamus, sed ineffabilem quamdam virtutem eius testamur; ita cum dicit filius: non possum a meipso facere quidquam, hoc dicit, quoniam impossibile est eum facere aliquid contrarium patri. CHRYS. Or thus; That the Son can do nothing of Himself, must be understood to mean, that He can do nothing contrary to, or displeasing to, the Father. And therefore He does not say that He does nothing contrary, but that He can do nothing; in order to show His perfect likeness, and absolute equality to the Father. Nor is this a sign of weakness in the Son, but rather of goodness. For as when we say that it is impossible for God to sin, we do not charge Him with weakness, but bear witness to a certain ineffable goodness; so when the Son says, I can do nothing of myself, it only means, that He can do nothing contrary to the Father.
Augustinus contra Serm. Arian: Hoc autem non deficientis est, sed in eo quod de patre natus est, permanentis; tamque laudabile est omnipotentem non posse mutari, quam laudabile est quod omnipotens non potest mori. Posset enim filius facere quod non vidisset patrem facientem, si posset facere quod per illum non facit pater; hoc est, si posset peccare: neque naturae immutabiliter bonae quae a patre est genita conveniret. Hoc autem quia non potest, non deficienter non potest, sed potenter. AUG. This is not a sign of failing in Him, but of His abiding in His birth from the Father. And it is as high an attribute of the Almighty that He does not change, as it is that Ho does not die. The Son could do what He had not seen the Father doing, if He could do what the Father does not do through Him; i.e. if He could sin: a supposition inconsistent with the immutably good nature which was begotten from the Father. That He cannot do; this then is to be understood of Him, not in the sense of deficiency, but of power.
Chrysostomus: His autem quae dicta sunt attestatur quod sequitur quaecumque enim ille fecerit, haec similiter et filius facit. Si enim per seipsum pater omnia facit, et filius per seipsum facit, ut hoc quod dicit similiter, maneat; vides qualiter intelligentia est excelsa, humilitatis autem verba. Si enim humilius producit verba quaedam, non mireris: quia enim persequebantur eum excelsa audientes, et contrarium Deo esse aestimabant, parum per verba remisit. CHRYS. And this is confirmed by what follows: For whatsoever be does these also do the Son likewise. For it the Father does all things by Himself, so does the Son also, if this likewise is to stand good. You see how high a meaning these humble words bear. He gives His thoughts a humble dress purposely. For whenever He expressed Himself loftily, He was persecuted, as an enemy of God.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Cum ergo dixisset et se eadem facere, et similiter quae facit pater, subdit pater enim diligit filium, et omnia demonstrat ei quaecumque ipse facit. Ad hoc quod supra dixit nisi quod viderit patrem facere, videtur pertinere et quod omnia demonstrat ei quae ipse facit. Sed rursus mortalis cogitatio perturbatur: dicet enim aliquis: seorsum facit pater, ut possit filius videre quod facit; velut si faber doceat filium artem suam, et demonstret ei quicquid facit, ut possit et ipse facere quod viderit patrem facientem. Cum ergo pater facit, filius non facit, ut possit videre filius quod pater facit. Porro si fixum atque inconcussum tenemus, quia per filium omnia pater facit, antequam faciat demonstrat filio. Ubi etiam demonstrat filio pater quod facit, nisi in ipso filio, per quem facit? Si enim pater exemplo faciat, et filius attendat manus patris quemadmodum faciat, ubi est illa inseparabilitas Trinitatis? Non ergo faciendo demonstrat pater filio, sed demonstrando facit per filium. Videt enim patrem filius demonstrantem antequam aliquid fiat, et ex demonstratione patris, et visione filii fit quod fit a patre per filium. Sed dices: ostendo filio meo quod volo facere, et facit ipse, atque ego per ipsum. Sed verba dicturus es filio tuo. Sed ipse filius est verbum patris. Numquid ergo per verbum loqueretur ad verbum? An quia filius magnum est verbum, minora verba transitura erant inter patrem et filium, et sonus aliquis, et quasi creatura quaedam temporalis exitura erat ex ore patris, et percussura aurem filii? Remove omnia corporalia: simplicitatem vide, si simplex es; si non potes comprehendere quid sit Deus, vel hoc comprehendere quid non Deus sit. Multum proficies, si non aliud quam est senseris de Deo. In mente tua vide quod volo dicere: in qua video memoriam et cogitationem. Demonstrat memoria tua cogitationi tuae Carthaginem, et quod in illa erat antequam intenderes, conversae ad se cogitationi ostendit. Ecce facta est a memoria demonstratio, facta est in cogitatione visio, et nulla verba in medio cucurrerunt, nullum ex corpore signum datum est; sed tamen omnia quae in memoria tenes, forinsecus accepisti. Pater quae demonstrat filio, non accepit extrinsecus: intus totum agitur; quia nihil creaturarum esset extrinsecus, nisi pater hoc fecisset per filium; et eam pater demonstrando fecit, quia per filium videntem fecit. Sic ergo demonstrans pater filii visionem gignit, quemadmodum pater filium gignit. Demonstratio quippe generat visionem, non visio demonstrationem. Quod si purius et perfectius intueri valeremus, fortassis inveniremus nec aliud esse patrem, aliud eius demonstrationem, nec aliud filium, aliud eius visionem. AUG. Having said that He did the same A things that the Father did, and in a like way, He adds, For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that Himself does. And shows Him all things that Himself does: this has a reference to the words above; But what He sees the Father do. But again, our human ideas are perplexed, and one may say, So then the Father first does something, that the Son may see what He does; just as an artificer teaches his son his art, and shows him what he makes, that he may be able to make the same after him. On this supposition, when the Father does a thing, the Son does not do it; in that the Son is beholding what His Father does. But we hold it as a fixed and incontrovertible truth, that the Father makes all things through the Son, and therefore He must show them to the Son, before He makes them. And where does the Father show the Son what He makes, except in the Son I Himself, by whom He makes them? For if the Father makes a thing for a pattern, and the Son attends to the workmanship as it goes on, where is the indivisibility of the Trinity? The Father therefore does not show the Son what He does by doing it, but by showing does it, through the Son. The Son sees, and the Father shows, before a thing is made, and from the showing of the Father, and the seeing of the Son, that is made which is made; made by the Father, through the Son. But you will say, I show my Son what I wish him to make, and he makes it, and I make it through him. True; but before you do any thing, you show it to your son, that he may do it for your example, and you by him; but you speak to your son words which are not yourself; whereas the Son Himself is the Word of the Father; and could He speak by the Word to the Word? Or, because the Son was the great Word, were lesser words to pass between the Father and the Son, or a certain sound and temporary creation, as it were, to go out of the mouth of the Father, and strike the ear of the Son? Put away these bodily notions, and if you are simple, see the truth in simplicity. If you can not comprehend what God is, comprehend at least what He is not. You will have advanced no little way, if you think nothing that is untrue of God. See what I am saying exemplified in your own mind. You have memory, and thought, your memory shows to your thought Carthage: before you perceive what is in her, she shows it to thought, which is turned toward her: the memory then has shown, the thought has perceived, and no words have passed between them, no outward sign been used. But whatever is in your memory, you receive from without: that which the Father shows to the Son, He does not receive from without; the whole goes on within; there being no creature existing without, but what the Father has made by the Son. And the Father makes by showing, in that He makes by, the Son who sees. The Father’s showing begets the Son’s seeing, as the Father begets the Son? Showing begets seeing, not seeing showing. But it would be more correct, and more spiritual, not to view the Father as distinct from His showing, or the Son from His seeing.
Hilarius de Trin: Non igitur per ignorationem credendus est unigenitus Deus doctrina demonstrationis eguisse. Demonstratio enim operum nihil aliud hic nobis praeterquam nativitatis fidem ingerit, ut subsistentem filium ex subsistente Deo patre credamus. HILARY. It must not be supposed that the Only Begotten God needed such showing on account of ignorance. For the showing here is only the doctrine of the nativity; the self-existing Son, from the self-existing Father.
Augustinus: Videre enim patrem hoc est illi esse filium. Sic ergo demonstrat pater omnia quae facit filio, ut a patre videat omnia filius. Videndo enim natus est, et ab eo est illi videre a quo est illi esse, et natum esse, et permanere. AUG. For to see the Father is to see His Son. The Father so shows all His works to the Son, that the Son sees them from the Father. For the birth of the Son is in His seeing: He sees from the same source, from which He is, and is born, and remains.
Hilarius: Neque autem incircumspectum se caelestis sermo egit, ne forte diversae naturae significatio sub occasione dicti ambigui subreperet. Demonstrata enim potius opera patris esse ait domino, quam ad operationem eorum naturam virtutis adiectam, ut demonstratio ipsa nativitas esse doceretur, cui per dilectionem patris operum paternorum, quae per eum effici vellet, esset cognata cognitio. HILARY. Nor did the heavenly discourse lack the caution, to guard against our inferring from these words any difference in the nature of the Son and the Father. For He says that the works of the Father were shown to Him, not that strength was supplied Him for the doing of them, in order to teach that this showing is substantially nothing else than His birth; for that simultaneously with the Son Himself is born the Son’s knowledge of the works the Father will do through Him.
Augustinus: Sed ecce quem diximus patri coaeternum, videntem patrem, et videndo existentem, rursus nobis tempora nominat; nam sequitur et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Si autem demonstrabit, hoc est demonstraturus est, nondum demonstravit; et tunc filio demonstraturus est quando et istis; sequitur enim ut vos miremini. Et hoc difficile est videre, quomodo tamquam temporaliter filio coaeterno aliquando monstret aeternus pater omnia scienti quae sunt apud patrem. Quae sint autem illa maiora, facile est intelligere ex hoc quod subditur sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat. Maiora enim opera sunt mortuos suscitare, quam languidos sanare. Sed qui paulo ante loquebatur ut Deus, coepit loqui ut homo. Demonstrabit enim quasi temporaliter homini facto in tempore opera maiora, idest resurrectionem corporum. Corpora enim resurgent per dispensationem humanam; sed animae resurgent per substantiam Dei: participatione enim Dei fit anima beata, non participatione beatae animae. Quomodo enim anima, quae inferior Deo est, id quod ipsa inferius est, hoc est corpus, vivere facit, sic eamdem animam non facit beate vivere, nisi quod ipsa anima superius est, scilicet Deus. Unde et prius dictum est quod pater diligit filium, et demonstrat ei quae ipse facit. Demonstrat enim pater filio ut animae suscitentur, quia per patrem et filium suscitantur, nec possunt vivere nisi earum vita sit Deus. Vel nobis pater demonstraturus est, non illi; propterea subiungit ut vos miremini: in quo exposuit quid voluit dicere: et maiora his demonstrabit ei opera. Sed quare non dixit: demonstrabit vobis, sed filio? Quia et nos membra sumus filii, et ipse discit quodammodo in membris suis, quomodo et patitur in nobis: sicut enim dixit: quod uni ex minimis meis dedistis, mihi dedistis, ita si interrogetur a nobis: quando eris discens, cum tu doceas omnia? Respondet: cum unus ex minimis meis discit, ego disco. AUG. But now from Him whom we called co-eternal with the Father, who saw the Father’ and existed in that He saw, we return to the things of time, And He will show him greater works than these. But if He will show him, i.e. is about to show him, He has not yet shown him: and when He does show him, others also will see; for it follows, That you may believe. It is difficult to see what the eternal Father can show in time to the co-eternal Son, Who knows all that exists within the Father’s mind. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them even so the Son quickens whom He will. To raise the dead was a greater work than to heal the sick. But this is explained by considering that He Who a little before spoke as God, now begins to speak as man. As man, and therefore living in time, He will be strewn greater works in time. Bodies will rise again by the human dispensation by which the Son of God assumed manhood in time; but souls by virtue of the eternity of the Divine Substance. For which reason it was said before that the Father loved the Son, and showed Him what things soever He did. For the Father shows the Son that souls are raised up; for they are raised up by the Father and the Son, even as they cannot live, except God give them life. Or the Father is about to show this to us, not to Him; according to what follows, That you may believe. This being the reason why the Father would show Him greater things than these. But why did He not say, shall show you, instead of the Son? Because we are members of the Son, and He, as it were, learns in His members, even as He suffers in us. For as He says, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these My brethren, you have done it to Me: so if we ask Him, how He, the Teacher of all things, learns, He replies, When one of the least of My brethren learns, I learn.

Lectio 4
21 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ. 22 οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ κρίνει οὐδένα, ἀλλὰ τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκεν τῷ υἱῷ, 23 ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα. ὁ μὴ τιμῶν τὸν υἱὸν οὐ τιμᾷ τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν.
21. For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them; even so the Son quickens whom he will. 22. For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son: 23. That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father which has sent him.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Quia dixerat quod maiora his opera pater demonstraturus est filio, quae sint maiora prosequitur, et dicit sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat. Plane maiora sunt ista: valde enim plus est ut resurgat mortuus quam ut convalescat aegrotus. Non autem sic hoc intelligamus ut alios a patre suscitari, alios a filio aestimemus; sed eosdem quos pater suscitat et vivificat, ipsos et filius suscitat et vivificat. Et ne quis diceret: suscitat pater mortuos per filium, ille tamquam potens, iste tamquam ex aliena potestate, tamquam minister facit aliquid; potestatem filii signavit dicens filius quos vult vivificat. Tenete hic non solum potestatem filii, verum etiam et voluntatem. Eadem enim patris et filii potestas est, et voluntas: non enim vult pater aliud quam filius; sed sicut illis una substantia, sic una voluntas est. AUG, Having said that the Father would show the Son greater works than these, He proceeds to describe these greater works: For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom He will. These are plainly greater works, for it is more of a miracle that a dead man should rise again, than that a sick mall should recover. We must not understand from the words, that some are raised by the Father, others by the Son; but that the Son raises to life the same whom the Father raises. And to guard against any one saying, The Father raises the dead by the Son, the former by His own power, the latter, like an instrument, by another power, He asserts distinctly the power of the Son: The Son quickens whom he will. Observe here not only the power of the Son, but also His will. Father and Son have the same power and will. The Father wills nothing distinct from the Son; but both have the same will, even as they have the same substance.
Hilarius de Trin: Velle quidem naturae libertas est, quae ad perfectae virtutis beatitudinem cum arbitrii voluntate in libertate subsistat. HILARY. For to will is the free power of a nature, which by the act of choice, rests in the blessedness of perfect excellence.
Augustinus: Sed qui sunt isti mortui, quos vivificat pater et filius? Vult nobis insinuare resurrectionem mortuorum quam omnes expectamus, non illam quam quidam habuerunt, ut ceteri crederent; resurrexit enim Lazarus moriturus. Cum ergo dixisset sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ne intelligeremus illam mortuorum resurrectionem quam fecit ad miraculum, non ad vitam aeternam, secutus ait neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, etc.: ut ostendat quia de illa resurrectione mortuorum dixerat quae futura est in iudicio. Vel aliter de resurrectione animarum dictum est sicut pater suscitat mortuos, et cetera. Resurrectione autem corporum sic dicit: neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, et cetera. Resurrectio enim animarum fit per substantiam patris et filii, et ideo id simul operantur pater et filius: resurrectio vero corporum fit per dispensationem humanitatis non patri coaeternam. Sed vide quomodo verbum Christi mentem nostram huc atque illuc ducit, et uno carnis loco remanere non sinit; ut versando exerceat, exercendo mundet, mundando capaces reddat, capaces factos impleat. Paulo enim ante dicebat, quia demonstrat pater filio quidquid facit. Videbam quasi patrem facientem, et filium expectantem: modo rursus video filium facientem, patrem vacantem. AUG. But who are these dead, whom the Father and Son raise to life? He alludes to the general resurrection which is to be; not to the resurrection of those few, who were raised to life, that the rest might believe; as Lazarus, who rose again, to die afterwards. Having said then, For as the Father raises up the dead, and quickens them, to prevent our taking the words to refer to the dead whom He raised up for the sake of the miracle, and not to the resurrection to life eternal, He adds, For the Father judges no man; thus showing that He spoke of that resurrection of the dead which would take place at the judgment. Or the words, As the Father raises up the dead, &c. refer to the resurrection of the soul; For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son, to the resurrection of the body. For the resurrection of the soul takes place by the substance of the Father and the Son, and therefore it is the work of the Father and the Son together: but the resurrection of the body takes place by a dispensation of the Son’s humanity, which is a temporal dispensation, and not co-eternal with the Father. But see how the Word of Christ leads the mind in different directions, not allowing it any carnal resting place; but by variety of motion exercising it, by exercise purifying it, by purifying enlarging its capacity, and after enlarging filling it. He said just before that the Father showed what things soever He did to the Son. So I saw, as it were, the Father working, and the Son waiting: now again I see the Son working, the Father resting.
Augustinus de Trin: Non enim quod dicitur omne iudicium dedit filio, secundum illam locutionem dictum est qua dicitur sic dedit filio vitam habere in semetipso; ut significaret quia sic filium genuit. Si enim sic diceretur, non utique diceretur pater non iudicat quemquam; secundum hoc enim quod pater aequalem genuit filium, iudicat cum illo. Secundum hoc ergo dictum est, quod in iudicio non forma Dei, sed forma filii hominis apparebit; non quia non iudicabit qui dedit omne iudicium filio, cum de illo dicat filius: est qui quaerat et iudicet; sed ita dictum est pater non iudicat quemquam, ac si diceretur: patrem nemo videbit in iudicio, sed omnes filium, quia filius hominis est, ut possit et ab impiis videri, cum et illi videbunt in quem pupugerunt. AUG. For this, viz. that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, does not mean that He begat the Son with this attribute, as is meant in the: words, So has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. For if so, it would not be said, The Father judges no man, because, in that the Father begat the Son equal, He judges with the Son. What is meant is, that in the judgment, not the form of God but the form of the Son of man will appear; not because He will not judge Who has given all judgment to the Son; since the Son says of Him below, There is one that seeks and judges, but the Father judges no man; i.e. no one will see Him in the judgment, but all will see the Son, because He is the Son of man, even the ungodly who will look on Him Whom they pierced.
Hilarius de Trin: Vel aliter. Quia dixerat et filius quos vult vivificat, ne non nativitatis videretur in se habere naturam, sed non natae potius potestatis iure subsistere, continuo subiecit neque enim pater iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit filio. Et in eo quod omne iudicium datum est, naturae nativitas demonstratur: quia et omnia habere sola natura possit indifferens, neque nativitas aliquid possit habere nisi datum sit. HILARY. Having said that the Son quickens whom He will, in order that we might not lose sight of the nativity, and think that He stood upon the ground of His own unborn power, He immediately adds, For the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son. In that all judgment is given to Him, both His nature, and His nativity are shown; because only a self-existent nature can possess all things, and nativity cannot have any thing, except what is given it.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sicut enim dedit vitam, idest genuit eum viventem, ita dedit iudicium, idest genuit eum iudicem. Dedit enim hic positum est, ne hunc ingenitum suspiceris, neque duos patres aestimes. Dicit autem omne iudicium, quia dominus est et puniendi et honorandi, ut voluerit. CHRYS. As He gave Him life, i.e. begot Him living; so He gave Him judgment, i.e. begot Him a judge. Gave, it is said, that you may not think Him unbegotten, and imagine two Fathers: All judgment, because He has the awarding; both of punishment and reward.
Hilarius: Datum est enim ei omne iudicium, quia vivificat quos vult. Neque ademptum patri iudicium potest videri, cum ipse non iudicet, quia filii iudicium ex iudicio est paterno. Ab eo enim datum omne iudicium est: sed dati iudicii causa non tacita est; sequitur enim ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. HILARY. All judgment is given to Him, because He quickens whom He will. Nor can the judgment be looked on as taken away from the Father, inasmuch as the cause of His not judging is, that the judgment of the Son is His. For all judgment is given from the Father. And the reason for which He gives it, appears immediately after: That all men may honor the Son even as you honor the Father.
Chrysostomus: Ne enim audiens quoniam patrem habet auctorem, dissimilitudinem substantiae aestimes, et honoris minorationem, complicat honorem filii patris honori, eumdem ostendens esse honorem patris et filii. Sed numquid patrem eum dicemus? Absit: qui enim patrem eum dicit, non adhuc filium ut patrem honorat, sed totum confundit. CHRYS. For, lest you should infer from hearing that the Author of His power was the Father, any difference of substance, or inequality of honor, He connects the honor of the Son with the honor of the Father, showing that both have the same. But shall men then call Him the Father? God forbid; he who calls Him the Father, does not honor the Son equally with the Father, but confounds both.
Augustinus: Et prius quidem filius videbatur ut servus, pater honorabatur ut Deus. Apparebit filius aequalis patri ut omnes honorificent filium, sicut honorificant patrem. Sed quid, si inveniuntur qui patrem honorificant, et non honorificant filium? Non potest fieri; unde sequitur qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Aliud est enim cum tibi commendatur Deus, quia Deus est, et aliud cum tibi commendatur Deus, quia pater est. Cum tibi commendatur Deus creator, tibi commendatur omnipotens, spiritus quidam summus, aeternus, invisibilis, incommutabilis; cum vero tibi, quia pater est, commendatur, nihil tibi aliud quam filius commendatur; quia pater dici non potest, si filium non habet. Sed si forte patrem quidem honorificas tamquam maiorem, filium tamquam minorem, ibi tollis honorem patris, ubi minorem das filio. Quid enim tibi aliud videtur ita sentienti, nisi quia pater aequalem sibi filium generare aut noluit, aut non potuit? Si noluit, invidit; si non potuit, defecit. Vel aliter. Quod dicitur ut omnes honorificent filium sicut honorificant patrem, redditum est resurrectioni animarum, quam sic operatur filius sicut pater; sed propter resurrectionem corporum subditur qui non honorificat filium, non honorificat patrem qui misit illum. Non dixit sic: honoratur enim homo Christus, sed non sicut pater Deus. Sed dicit aliquis: missus est filius, et maior est pater, quia misit. Recede a carne: missionem audi, non separationem. Res humanae fallunt homines, res divinae purgant; quamquam et ipsae res humanae dicant contra se testimonium; velut si quis uxorem velit petere, et per se non possit, amicum maiorem mittit qui eam petat. Et tamen attende quam sit aliud in rebus humanis: numquid enim homo pergit cum eo quem mittit? Pater autem qui misit filium, non recessit a filio, cum dicat: non sum solus, quia pater mecum est. AUG. First indeed, the Son appeared as a servant, and the Father was honored as God. But the Son will be seen to be equal to the Father, that all men may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. But what if persons are found, who honor the Father, and do not honor the Son? It cannot be: He that honors not the Son, honors not the Father which has sent Him. It is one thing to acknowledge God, as God; and another to acknowledge Him as the Father. When you acknowledge God the Creator, you acknowledge an almighty, supreme, eternal, invisible, immutable Spirit. When you acknowledge the Father, you do in reality acknowledge the Son; for He could not be the Father, had He not the Son. But if you honor the Father as greater, the Son as less, so far as you gives less honor to the Son, you take away from the honor of the Father. For you in reality think that the Father could not or would not beget the Son equal to Himself; which if He would not do, He was envious, if He could not, He was weak. Or, That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father; has a reference to the resurrection of souls, which is the work of the Son, as well as of the Father. But the resurrection of the body is meant in what comes after: He that honors not the Son honors not the Father that sent Him. Here is no as; the man Christ is honored, but not as the Father Who sent Him, since with respect to His manhood He Himself says, My Father is greater than I. But some one will say, if the Son is sent by the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Leave your fleshly actions, and understand a mission, not a separation. Human things deceive, divine things make clear; although even human things give testimony against you, e.g. if a man offers marriage to a woman, and cannot obtain her by himself, he sends a friend, greater than himself; to urge his suit for him. But see the difference in human things. A man does not go with him whom he sends; but the Father Who sent the Son, never ceased to be with the Son; as we read, I am not alone, but the Father its with Me.
Augustinus de Trin: Non autem eo ipso quod de patre natus est, missus dicitur filius; sed vel eo quod apparuit huic mundo, verbum caro factum; unde dicit: a patre exivi, et veni in hunc mundum: vel eo quod ex tempore cuiusdam mente percipitur, sicut dictum est. Mitte illam, ut mecum sit, et mecum laboret. AUG. It is not, however, as being born of the Father, that the Son is said to be sent, but from His appearing in this world, as the Word made flesh; as He says, I went forth from the Father, and am come into the world: or from His being received into our minds individually, as we read, Send her, that she may be with me, and may labor with me.
Hilarius: Conclusa igitur sunt omnia adversum haeretici furoris ingenia. Filius est, quia a se nil facit: Deus est, quia quaecumque pater facit, et ipse eadem facit; unum sunt, quia exaequantur in honore: non est pater ipse, quia missus est. HILARY. The conclusion then stands good against all the fury of heretical minds. He is the Son because He does nothing of Himself: He is God, because, whatsoever things the Father does, He does the same; They are one, because They are equal in honor: He is not the Father, because He is sent.

Lectio 5
24 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.
24. Verily, verily, I say to you, He that hears my word, and believes in him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death to life.

Glossa: Quia dixerat quod filius quos vult vivificat, consequenter ostendit qualiter per filium perveniatur ad vitam, dicens amen dico vobis, quia qui verbum meum audit, et credit ei qui misit me, habet vitam aeternam. GLOSS. Having said that the Son quickens whom He will, He next shows that we attain to life through the Son: Verily, verily, I say to you, He that hears My word, and believes in Him that sent Me, has everlasting life.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quandoquidem in audiendo et credendo vita aeterna est, multo magis in intelligendo. Sed gradus pietatis est fides, fidei fructus intellectus. Et non dixit: mihi; sed credit ei qui misit me. Quare verbum audit tuum, et credit alteri? Quid voluit dicere nisi quia verbum eius est in me? Et quid est audit verbum meum, nisi audit me? Credit autem ei qui misit me: quia cum illi credit, verbo eius credit, mihi credit, quia verbum patris ego sum. AUG. If, in hearing and believing is eternal life, how much more in understanding? But the step to our piety is faith, the fruit of faith, understanding. It is not, Believes in Me, but in Him that sent Me. Why is one to hear His word, and believe another? Is it not that He means to say, His word is in Me? And what is, Hears My word, but hears Me? And it is, Believe in Him that sent Me; as to say, He that believes in Him, believes in His Word, i.e. in Me, because I am the Word of the Father.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel non dixit: qui audit sermones meos, et credit mihi: aestimassent enim hoc esse tumorem et gloriationem verborum superfluam. Dicens autem credit ei qui misit me, susceptibilem faciebat suum sermonem. Ex duobus enim suum sermonem susceptibilem facit: et in hoc quod patri creditur ab eo qui ipsum audit, et in hoc quod multis bonis potietur; unde sequitur et in iudicium non venit. CHRYS. Or, He did not say, He that hears My words, and believes in Me; as they would have thought this empty boasting and arrogance. To say, Believes in Him that sent Me, was a better way of making His discourse acceptable. To this end He says two things: one, that he who hears Him, believes on the Father; the other, that he who hears and believes shall not come into condemnation.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sed quis est hic? Erit quisquam Paulo apostolo melior, qui ait: oportet nos exhiberi omnes ante tribunal Christi? Aliquando ergo iudicium poena dicitur, aliquando iudicium discretio dicitur. Ergo secundum iudicium discretionis oportet nos omnes exhiberi ante tribunal Christi; secundum iudicium damnationis hic dicitur in iudicium non venit; idest, non venit in damnationem. Sequitur sed transit a morte in vitam. Non nunc transit, sed iam transiit a morte infidelitatis ad vitam fidei, a morte iniquitatis ad vitam iustitiae. Vel aliter. Ne putares credendo te non moriturum secundum carnem, scias te mortem, quam debes supplicio Adam, persoluturum. Accepit enim ille, in quo tunc omnes fuimus: morte morieris nec potes evadere divinam sententiam. Sed cum persolveris mortem veteris hominis, suscipies vitam novi hominis, et transitum facies de morte ad vitam. Ad quam vitam? Ad aeternam: resurrecturi enim in fine saeculi, mortui in vitam aeternam transibunt: vita enim ista nec vita nominanda est, quia non est vera vita nisi quae est aeterna. AUG. But who is this favored Person? Will there be any one better than the Apostle Paul, who says, We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ? Now judgment sometimes means punishment, sometimes trial. In the sense of trial, we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ: in the sense of condemnation we read, some shall not come into judgment; i.e. shall not be condemned. It follows, but is passed from death into life: not, is now passing, but has passed from the death of unbelief, into the life of faith, from the death of sin, to the life of righteousness. Or, it is so said perhaps, to prevent our supposing that faith would save us from bodily death, that penalty which we must pay for Adam’s transgression. He, in whom we all then were, heard the divine sentence, You shall surely die; nor can we evade it. But when we have suffered the death of the old man, we shall receive the life of the new, and by death make a passage to life. But to what life? To life everlasting: the dead shall rise again at the end of the world, and enter into everlasting life. For this life does not deserve the name of life; only that life is true which is eternal.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Videmus autem homines amatores praesentis vitae temporalis ac finiendae, sic pro illa laborare ut quando veniat mortis metus, quidquid possunt faciant, non ut auferant, sed ut differant mortem. Si ergo tanto labore, tanta cura agitur ut aliquantulum plus vivatur, quomodo agendum est ut semper vivatur? Et si prudentes dicuntur qui omnibus modis agunt ut differant mortem et vivant paucos dies, quam stulti sunt qui sic vivunt ut perdant aeternum diem? AUG. We see the lovers of this present transitory life so intent on its welfare, that when in danger of death, they will take any means to delay its approach, though they can not hope to drive it off altogether. If so much care and labor then is spent on gaining a little additional length of life, how ought we to strive after life eternal? And if they are thought wise, who endeavor in every way to put off death, though they can live but a few days longer; how foolish are they who so live, as to lose the eternal day?

Lectio 6
25 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα καὶ νῦν ἐστιν ὅτε οἱ νεκροὶ ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσουσιν. 26 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ:
25. Verily, verily, I say to you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26. For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Posset aliquis dicere: ex patre aliquis vivificatur cui credit. Quid tu? Non vivificas? Vide quia et filius quos vult vivificat; unde dicit amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. AUG. Some one might ask you, The Father quickens him who believes in Him; but what of you? do you not quicken? Observe you that the Son also quickens whom He will; Verily, verily, I say to you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Cum autem dicat venit hora, ne forte longum suspiceris tempus, addidit et nunc est. Sicut enim in resurrectione futura vocem audientes praecipientem suscitabimur, ita et nunc fit. CHRYS. After, The hour comes, He adds, and now is; to let us know that it will not be long before it comes. For as in the future resurrection we shall be roused by hearing His voice speaking to us, so is it now.
Theophylactus: Hoc enim dixit pro his quos a mortuis suscitaturus fuit, scilicet filia archisynagogi, filio viduae et Lazaro. THEOPHYL. Here He speaks with a reference to those whom He was about to raise from the dead: viz. the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, the son of the widow, and Lazarus.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Vel aliter. Ne forte quia dixit transit de morte ad vitam, intelligamus hoc in futura resurrectione, ostendere volens quomodo transit qui credit, subiungit amen, amen dico vobis, quia venit hora. Quae hora? Et nunc est, quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei, et qui audierint vivent. Non inquit: quia vivunt, audiunt; sed audiendo reviviscunt. Quid est enim audient, nisi obedient? Qui enim credunt, et secundum veram fidem agunt, vivunt, et mortui non sunt; qui autem vel non credunt, vel credunt male viventes et caritatem non habentes, mortui potius deputandi sunt. Et tamen adhuc agitur hora ista, et usque ad finem saeculi ipsa hora una agitur, ut Ioannes dicit: novissima hora est. AUG. Or, He means to guard against our thinking, that the being passed from death to life, refers to the future resurrection; its meaning being, that he who believes is passed: and therefore He says, Verily, verily, I say to you, The hour comes, (what hour?) and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. He said not, because they live, they hear; but in consequence of hearing, they come to life again. But what is hearing, but obeying? For they who believe and do according to the true faith, live, and are not dead; whereas those who believe not, or, believing, live a bad life, and have not love, are rather to be accounted dead. And yet that hour is still going on, and will go on, the same hour, to the end of the world: as John says, It is the last hour.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Quando mortui, idest infideles, audient vocem filii Dei, idest Evangelium, et qui audierint, idest qui obedierint, vivent, idest iustificabuntur, et infideles iam non erunt. AUG. When the dead, i.e. unbelievers, shall hear the voice of the Son of God, i.e. the Gospel: and they that hear, i.e. who obey, shall live, i.e. be justified, and no longer remain in unbelief.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Sed quaeret aliquis: habet filius vitam unde vivant credentes? Audi ipsum dicentem sicut enim habet pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et filio habere vitam in semetipso. Vivere quippe suum in illo est, non aliunde, non alienum est; non quasi particeps sit vitae, quae non est quod ipse; sed habet vitam in semetipso, ut ipsa vita sibi sit ipse. Quid tu? Anima mortua eras. Audi patrem per filium: surge, ut in eo recipias vitam, quam non habes in te, qui habet vitam in semetipso; et sic agitur prima resurrectio. Haec enim vita, quod pater et filius est, ad animam pertinet. Non enim vitam illam sapientiae sentit corpus, sed mens rationalis. AUG. But some one will ask, Has the Son life, whence those who believe will fire? Hear His own words: As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. Life is original and absolute in Him, comes from no other source, depends on no other power. He is not as if He were partaker of a life, which is not Himself; but has life in Himself: so as that He Himself is His own life. Hear, O dead soul, the Father, speaking by the Son: arise, that you may receive that life which you have not in yourself, and enter into the first resurrection. For this life, which the Father and the Son are, pertains to the soul, and is not perceived by the body. The rational mind only discovers the life of wisdom.
Hilarius de synodis: Conclusi quidem haeretici Scripturarum auctoritatibus, hoc solum tribuere solent filio, ut patri tantum virtute similis sit; tollunt autem ei similitudinem naturae; non intelligentes, non nisi ex naturae similitudine similitudinem esse virtutis: neque enim aliquando inferior natura superioris a se potiorisque naturae virtutem consequitur. Non autem potest negari quin filius Dei idem possit, cum dixerit quaecumque pater facit, eadem et filius facit similiter. Sed similitudini virtutis, naturae similitudo succedit, cum dixit sicut habet pater vitam in semetipso, ita et filio dedit habere vitam in semetipso. In vita, naturae et essentiae significatio est; quae sicut habetur, ita data esse docetur ad habendum. Quod enim in utroque vita est, id in utroque significatur essentia; et vita quae gignitur ex vita, idest essentia quae de essentia nascitur, dum non dissimilis nascitur, scilicet quia vita ex vita est, tenet in se originis suae indissimilem naturam. HILARY. The heretics, driven hard by Scripture proofs, are obliged to attribute to the Son at any rate a likeness, in respect of virtue, to the Father. But they do not admit a likeness of nature, not being able to see that a likeness of virtue, could not arise but from a likeness of nature; as an inferior nature can never attain to the virtue of a higher and better one. And it cannot be denied that the Son of God has the same virtue with the Father, when He says, What things soever (the Father) does, the same does the Son likewise. But an express mention of the likeness of nature follows: As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself. In life are comprehended nature and essence. And the Son, as He has it, so has He it given to Him. For the same which is life in both, is essence in both; and the life, i.e. essence, which is begotten from life, is born; though not born unlike the other. For, being life from life, it remains like in nature to its origin.
Augustinus de Trin: Intelligitur autem pater non sine vita existenti iam filio vitam dedisse; sed ita eum sine tempore genuisse ut vita quam pater filio gignendo dedit, coaeterna sit vitae eius qui dedit. AUG. The Father must he understand not to have given life to the Son, who was existing without life, but so to have begotten Him, independently of time, that the life which He gave Him in begetting, was co-eternal with His own.
Hilarius de Trin: Quod enim ex vivo vivum natum est, habet nativitatis perfectionem sine novitate naturae: non enim novum est quod ex vivo generatur in vivum, quia nec ex nihilo ad nativitatem vita quaesita est; et vita quae nativitatem sumit ex vita, necesse est per naturae unitatem, et perfectae nativitatis sacramentum, ut in vivente vivat, et in se habeat vitam viventem. Et quidem naturae humanae infirmitas ex disparibus comparatur, et ex inanimatis continetur ad vitam, nec statim in ea quod gignitur vivit, neque totum vivit ex vita, cum in ea multa sint quae sine naturae sensu, cum excreverint, desiccentur. In Deo vero totum quod est vivit: Deus enim vita est, et ex vita non potest quidquam esse nisi vivum. HILARY. Living born from living, has the perfection of nativity, without the newness of nature. For there is nothing new implied in generation from living to living, the life not coming at its birth from nothing. And the life which derives its birth from life, must by the unity of nature, and the sacrament of a perfect birth, both be in the living being, and have the being who lives it, in itself. Weak human nature indeed is made up of unequal elements, and brought to life out of inanimate matter; nor does the human offspring live for some time after it is begotten. Neither does it wholly live from life, since much grows up in it insensibly, and decays insensibly. But in the case of God, the whole of what He is, lives: for God is life, and from life, can nothing be but what is living.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Ergo quod dicitur dedit filio, tale est ac si diceretur: genuit filium: generando enim dedit. Quomodo dedit ut esset, sic dedit ut vita esset in semetipso, ut non aliunde vita indigeret; sed ipse esset plenitudo vitae unde credentes alii viverent, dum viverent. Quid interest? Quia ille dedit, iste accepit. AUG. Given to the Son, then, has the meaning of, begat the Son; for He gave Him tines life, by begetting. As He gave Him being, so He gave Him to have life in Himself; so that the Son did not stand in need of life to come to Him from without; but was in Himself the fullness of life, whence others, i.e. believers, received their life. What then is the difference between Them? This that one gave, the other received.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vides indissimilitudinem, in uno solo differentiam ostendentem; in essendo hunc quidem patrem, illum vero filium. CHRYS The likeness is perfect in all but one respect, viz. that, in point of essence, one is the Father, the other the Son.
Hilarius de synodis: Discernitur enim persona accipientis et dantis: non enim potest intelligi ipse atque unus a se accepisse qui dederit: quia alius est sibi vivens, alius profitens se vivere per auctorem. HILARY. For the person of the receiver, is distinct from that of the giver: it being inconceivable that one and the same person, should give to and receive from Himself. He who lives of Himself is one person: He who acknowledges an Author of His life is another.

Lectio 7
27 καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. 28 μὴ θαυμάζετε τοῦτο, ὅτι ἔρχεται ὥρα ἐν ᾗ πάντες οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις ἀκούσουσιν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ 29 καὶ ἐκπορεύσονται, οἱ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς, οἱ δὲ τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες εἰς ἀνάστασιν κρίσεως.
27. And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.

Theophylactus: Non solum pater dedit filio quod vivificet, sed etiam quod iudicium faciat; unde dicit et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere. THEOPHYL. The Father granted the Son power not only to give life, but also to execute judgment. And has given Him authority to execute judgment.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Cuius autem gratia circa hoc continue vertitur iudicium, dico et resurrectionem et vitam? Quoniam haec maxime omnium sunt quae possunt difficilem etiam auditorem ad credendum adducere. Qui enim persuasus est quoniam resurget, et filio dabit noxas eorum quae deliquit, etsi nihil aliud viderit, signum hoc suscipiens curret, benignum sibi iudicem faciens. Sequitur quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc. Paulus quidem Samosatenus non ita ait; sed sic dedit ei potestatem iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Sed nullam convenientiam habet hoc dictum ita: non enim propterea suscepit iudicium quia homo est: quia quis prohibet omnes homines esse iudices? Sed quia ineffabilis Dei filius est, propterea et iudex est. Ita igitur legendum: quia filius hominis est, nolite mirari hoc: quia enim videbatur audientibus obstare his quae dicebantur: quoniam nihil plus aestimabant esse Christum quam purum hominem; quae vero dicebantur erant maiora quam secundum hominem, et etiam quam secundum Angelum, et erant solius Dei: ideo hanc opinionem solvens, dixit: ne miremini quia filius hominis est: et subdit causam quare non sit mirandum, dicens quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt, audient vocem filii Dei. Et cuius gratia non dixit: ne miremini, quia filius hominis est: etenim et ipse filius Dei est? Si resurrectionem posuit, quasi scilicet opus dicens quod Dei proprium erat, dat audientibus ex eo syllogizare de reliquo, quoniam Deus erat, et Dei filius. Etenim qui argumenta complicant, cum partes ponentes nobiliter demonstraverint quod quaeritur, multoties non inducunt ipsi conclusionem, sed clariorem facientes victoriam, dimittunt illi qui contradicit, ut pro eis sententiam ferat. Igitur eius quidem quae secundum Lazarum resurrectionis supra reminiscens, de iudicio tacuit: non enim propter iudicium surrexit Lazarus: universalem vero resurrectionem inducens, iudicium posuit; unde sequitur et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae; qui vero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Quia enim supra dixerat: qui audit sermonem meum et credit ei qui misit me, in iudicium non venit, ut non aestimet quis quod credere sufficit ad salutem, adiecit haec et de vita, dum dicit et qui bona egerunt (...) et qui mala egerunt. CHRYS. But why does He dwell so constantly on these subjects; judgment, resurrection, and life? Because these are the most powerful arguments for bringing men over to the faith, and the most likely ones to prevail with obstinate hearers. For one who is persuaded that he shall rise again, and be called by the Son to account for his misdeeds, will, though he know nothing more than this, be anxious to propitiate his Judge. It follows, Because He is the Son of man, marvel not at this. Paul of Samosata reads it, Has given Him power to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. But this connection has no meaning; for He does not receive the power to judge because He is man, (as, on this supposition, what would prevent all men from being judges:) but because He is the ineffable Son of God; therefore is He Judge. We must read it then, Because He is the Son of man, marvel not at this. As Christ’s hearers thought him a mere man, and as what He asserted of Himself was too high to be true of men, or even angels, or any being short of God Himself, there was a strong obstacle in the way of their believing, which our Lord notices in order to remove it: Marvel not, He says, that He is the Son of man: and then adds the reason why they should not marvel: For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. And why did He not say, Marvel not that He is the Son of man: because in truth He is the Son of God? Because, having given out that it was He who should raise men from the dead, the resurrection being a strictly divine work, He leaves His hearers to infer that He is God, and the Son of God. Persons in arguing often do this. When they have brought out grounds amply sufficient to prove the conclusion they want, they do not draw that conclusion themselves; but, to make the victory greater; leave the opponent to draw it. In referring above to the resurrection of Lazarus and the rest, he said nothing about judgment, for Lazarus did not rise again for judgment; whereas now, that He is speaking of the general resurrection, He brings in the mention of the judgment: And (they) shall come forth, He says, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. Having said above, He that hears My words, and believe in Him that sent Me, has everlasting life; that men might not suppose from this, that belief was sufficient for salvation, He proceeds to speak of works: And they that have done good, - and they that have done evil.
Augustinus: Vel aliter. Inquantum erat verbum in principio apud Deum, dedit ei vitam habere in semetipso; sed quia verbum caro factum est ex virgine Maria, homo factus filius hominis est; et quia filius hominis est, accepit potestatem iudicium facere, quod scilicet erit in fine saeculi, et ibi erit resurrectio corporum mortuorum. Animas ergo suscitat Deus per Christum filium Dei, corpora suscitat per eumdem filium hominis; unde additur quia filius hominis est: nam secundum quod Dei filius est, semper habuit. AUG. Or thus: Inasmuch as the Word was in the beginning with God, the Father gave Him to have life in Himself; but inasmuch as the Word w as made flesh of the Virgin Mary, being made man, He became the Son of man: and as the Son of man, He received power to execute judgment at the end of the world; at which time the bodies of the dead shall rise again. The souls then of the dead God raises by Christ the Son of God, their bodies by the same Christ, the Son of man. Wherefore He adds, Because He is the Son of man: for, as to the Son of God, He always had the power.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Ad iudicium enim forma hominis ventura est; forma illa iudicabit quae iudicata est: sedebit iudex qui stabat sub iudice, damnabit vero reos qui factus est falso reus. Rectum enim erat ut iudicandi viderent iudicem: iudicandi autem erant boni et mali: restabat ut in iudicio forma servi et bonis et malis ostenderetur, forma Dei solis bonis servaretur. Beati enim mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. AUG. At the judgment will appear the form of man, that form will judge, which was judged; He will sit a Judge Who stood before the judge; He will condemn the guilty, Who was condemned innocent. For it is proper that the judged should see their Judge. Now the judged consist of both good and bad; so that the form of the servant will be strewn to good and bad alike; the form of God to the good only. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Omnes autem qui instituerunt alicuius etiam falsae religionis sectam, negare resurrectionem mentium non potuerunt; sed multi carnis resurrectionem negaverunt; et nisi tu, domine Iesu, dixeris eam, quid opponemus contradictoribus? Ad ipsam igitur ostendendam subdit nolite mirari hoc, scilicet quod dedit potestatem filio hominis iudicium faciendi, quia venit hora. AUG. None if the, founders of false religious sects have been able to deny the resurrection of the soul, but many have denied the resurrection of the body; and, unless You, Lord Jesus, had declared it, what answer could we give the gainsayer? To set forth this truth, He says, Marvel not at this; (i.e. that He has given power to the Son of man to execute judgment,) for the hour is coming, &c.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Hic non addit et nunc est, quia ista hora in fine saeculi erit. Nolite, inquam, mirari, quia dixit: oportet homines ab homine iudicari; sed quos homines? Non solum quos inveniet vivos; unde sequitur quia venit hora in qua omnes qui in monumentis sunt. AUG. He does not add, And now is, here; because this hour would be at the end of the world. Marvel not, i.e. marvel not, men will all be judged by a man. But what men? Not those only, whom He will find alive, For the hour comes, in which all that are in their graves shall hear His voice.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Quid evidentius? Corpora sunt in monumentis, non animae. Superius etiam cum diceret venit hora, et adderet et nunc est, subiecit quando mortui audient vocem filii Dei. Non dixit: omnes mortui: mortuos enim iniquos voluit intelligi; sed non omnes iniqui obediunt Evangelio; at vero in fine omnes qui sunt in monumentis audient vocem eius, et procedent. Noluit dicere: et vivent, quod supra dixit, ubi vitam aeternam intelligi voluit et beatam, quam non omnes habebunt qui de monumentis procedent. Accepisti certe potestatem iudicandi, quia filius hominis es. Resurgent corpora; de ipso iudicio dic aliquid, et hoc audite qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem vitae, vivere scilicet cum Angelis Dei; qui male egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Hic iudicium pro poena posuit. AUG. What can be plainer? Men’s bodies are in their graves, not their souls. Above when He said, The hour comes, and added, and now is; He proceeds, When the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. He does not say, All the dead; for by the dead are meant the wicked, and the wicked have not all been brought to obey the Gospel But in the end of the world all that are in their graves shall hear His voice, and come forth. He does not say, Shall live, as He said above, when He spoke of the eternal and blessed life; which all will not have, who shall come forth from their graves. This judgment was committed to Him because He was the Son of man. But what takes place in this judgment? They that have done good shall go to the resurrection of life, i.e. to live with the Angels of God; they that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. Judgment here meaning damnation.

Lectio 8
30 οὐ δύναμαι ἐγὼ ποιεῖν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδέν: καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω, καὶ ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ δικαία ἐστίν, ὅτι οὐ ζητῶ τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με. —
30. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own wild, but the will of the Father which has sent me.

Augustinus in Ioannem: Dicturi eramus Christo: tu iudicabis, et pater non iudicabit; nonne ergo secundum patrem iudicabis? Et ideo adiecit non possum ego a me facere quidquam. AUG. We were about to ask Christ, you will judge, and the Father not judge: will not you then judge according to the Father? He anticipates us by saying, I can of Mine own Self do nothing.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Hoc est, non extraneum neque dissimile his quae vult pater, a me fieri videbitis; sed sicut audio, iudico: in quo nihil aliud ostendit quam quoniam impossibile est eum aliquid aliud velle quam quod pater vult: hoc est, ita iudico ac si ipse pater esset qui iudicaret. CHRYS. That is, nothing that is a departure from, or that is unlike to, what the Father wishes, shall you see done by Me, but as I hear, I judge. He is only showing that it was impossible He should ever wish any thing bat what the Father wished. I judge, His meaning is, as if it were My Father that judged.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Cum ageretur de resurrectione animarum, non dicebat audio, sed video. Audio enim nunc dicit, tamquam praecipientis patris imperium. Iam ergo sicut homo loquitur, quo maior est pater. AUG. When He spoke of the resurrection of the soul, He did not say, Hear, but, See. Hear implies a command issuing from the Father. He speaks as man, who is inferior to the Father.
Augustinus contra Arianos: Vel aliter. Dicit filius sicut audio iudico, sive ex humana subiectione, quia filius hominis est, sive secundum illam incommutabilem simplicemque naturam quae sic est filii, ut tamen ei de patre sit: in qua natura non est aliud audire, aliud videre, aliud esse. Unde ab illo est ei audire, et videre a quo illi est ipsum esse. Et ideo sicut audit iudicat: quia sicut genitum est verbum, ut idem verbum sit veritas, ita secundum veritatem iudicat. Sequitur et iudicium meum iustum est: quia non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me patris. Hoc enim dicens, ad illum hominem voluit referre intentionem nostram qui voluntatem suam quaerendo, non eius a quo factus est, non habuit iustum iudicium de seipso: sed iustum iudicium habitum est de ipso. Ipse quippe faciens voluntatem suam, non Dei, moriturum se esse non credidit; sed hoc iudicium eius iustum non fuit. Denique fecit, et mortuus est: quia iudicium Dei iustum est, quod iudicium facit Dei filius, non quaerendo voluntatem suam, cum sit etiam hominis filius: non quia ipsius in iudicando nulla voluntas est, sed quia non ita est voluntas eius propria ut sit a voluntate patris aliena. AUG. As I hear, I judge, is said with reference either to His human subordination, as the Son of man, or to that immutable and simple nature of the Sonship derived from the Father; in which nature hearing and seeing is identical with being. Wherefore as He hears, He judges. The Word is begotten one with the Father, and therefore judges according to truth. It follows, And My judgment is just, because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which has sent Me. This is intended to take us back to that man who, by seeking his own will, not the will of Him who made him, did not judge himself justly, but had a just judgment pronounced upon him. He did not believe that, by doing his own will, not God’s, he should die. So he did his own will, and died; because the judgment; of God is just, which judgment the Son of God executes, by not seeking His own will, i.e. His will as being the Son of man. Not that He has no will in judging, but His will is not His own in such sense, as to be different from the Father’s.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Non ego quaero voluntatem meam propriam, idest filii hominis, quae resistat Deo: faciunt enim homines voluntatem suam, non Dei, quando faciunt quod volunt, non quod iubet Deus. Quando autem ita faciunt quod volunt, ut tamen sequantur voluntatem Dei, non faciunt voluntatem suam. Vel ideo dicit filius non quaero voluntatem meam: quia Christus non est de se, sed de patre suo est. AUG. I seek not then Mine own will, i.e. the will of the Son of man, in opposition to God: for men do their own will, not God’s, when, to do what they wish, they violate God’s commands But when they so do what they wish, as at the same time to follow the will of God, they do not their own will. Or, I seek not Mine own will: i.e. because I am not of myself, but of the Father.
Chrysostomus: Ostendit enim non aliam esse patris voluntatem praeter suam, sed unam utriusque. Si vero humanius hoc loquitur, ne mireris: hominem enim purum adhuc eum aestimabant. Inde igitur suum iudicium iustum esse dixit, unde quilibet alius excusans dixisset; qui enim sua vult statuere, in suspicionem deveniet de corruptione iustitiae; qui vero non suis innititur, quam occasionem habebit ut iniusta iudicet? CHRYS. He shows that the Father’s will is not a different one from His own, but one and the same, as a ground of defense. Nor marvel if being hitherto thought no more than a mere man, He defends Himself in a somewhat human way, and shows his judgment to be just on the same ground which any other person would have taken; viz. that one who has his own ends in view, may incur suspicion of injustice, but that one who has not cannot.
Augustinus in Ioannem: Filius unicus dicit non quaero voluntatem meam: et homines volunt facere voluntatem suam. Faciamus ergo voluntatem patris, Christi, et spiritus sancti: quia horum una voluntas, una potestas, una maiestas est. AUG. The only Son says, I seek not Mine own will: and yet men wish to do their own will. Let us do the will of the Father, Christ, and Holy Ghost: for these have one will, power, and majesty.

Lectio 9
31 ἐὰν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἡ μαρτυρία μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής: 32 ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. 33 ὑμεῖς ἀπεστάλκατε πρὸς Ἰωάννην, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκεν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ: 34 ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε. 35 ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ. 36 ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου: τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ δέδωκέν μοι ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτά, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν: 37 καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ ἐκεῖνος μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ ἐμοῦ. οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε ἀκηκόατε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε, 38 καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ὑμῖν μένοντα, ὅτι ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε. 39 ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν: καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ: 40 καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε.
31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. 32. There is another that bears witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true. 33. You sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth. 34. But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that you might be saved. 35. He was a burning and a shining light: and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36. But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father has given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father has sent me. 37. And the Father himself, which has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38. And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he has sent, him you believe not. 39. Search the Scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40. And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia Christus magna de se enuntiaverat, quorum demonstratio non erat dicta, ad confirmationem eorum quae dicta sunt, oppositionem eorum inducit, dicens si ego testimonium perhibeo de me, testimonium meum non est verum. Quis autem non statim turbabitur, Christum audiens hoc dicentem? Etenim in multis locis apparet sibi ipsi testatus. Si igitur omnia haec falsa sunt, quae nobis erit spes salutis? Unde veritatem inveniemus, cum ipsa veritas dicat testimonium meum non est verum? Hoc igitur quod dicit non est verum, non quantum ad dignitatem suam, sed quantum ad illorum suspicionem loquebatur. Poterant enim ei Iudaei subinferre: quoniam tibi non credimus: nullus enim unquam sibi testans dignus est fide. Deinde post oppositionem alias dat responsiones manifestas et irrefragabiles, tres inducens testes eorum quae dicta sunt: opera quae ab ipso sunt facta, patris testimonium, et Ioannis praedicationem: et ponit priorem minorem, eam scilicet quae Ioannis; unde dicit alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me; et scio quoniam verum est testimonium eius quod perhibet de me. CHRYS. He now brings proof of those high declarations respecting Himself. He answers an objection: If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. These are Christ’s own words. But does not Christ in many places bear witness of Himself? And if all this is false, where is our hope of salvation? Whence shall we obtain truth, when the Truth Itself says, My witness is not true. We must believe then that true, here, is said, not with reference to the intrinsic value of His testimony, but to their suspicions; for the Jews might say, We do not believe You, because no one who bears witness to himself is to he depended on. In answer then, he puts forth three clear and irrefragable proofs, three witnesses as it were, to the truth of what He had said; the works which He had done, the testimony of the Father, and the preaching of John: putting the least of these foremost, i.e. the preaching of John: There is another that bears witness of Me: and I know that the witness which he witnesses of Me is true.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Noverat enim ipse verum esse de se testimonium suum; sed propter infirmos et propter incredulos quaerebat sol lucernas: fulgorem quippe solis lippitudo eorum ferre non poterat; ideo quaesitus est Ioannes qui testimonium perhiberet veritati. Martyres nonne testes sunt Christi, ut testimonium perhibeant veritati? Sed si diligentius inspicimus, quando martyres perhibent illi testimonium, ipse sibi perhibet testimonium; ipse enim habitat in martyribus, ut perhibeant testimonium veritati. AUG. He knew Himself that His witness of Himself was true, but in compassion to the weak and unbelieving, the Sun sought for candles, that their weak sight might not be dazzled by His full blaze. And therefore John was brought forward to give his testimony to the truth. Not that there is such testimony really, for whatever witnesses bear witness to Him, it is really He who bears witness to Himself; as it is His dwelling in the witnesses, which moves them so to give their witness to the truth.
Alcuinus: Vel aliter. Quia Christus Deus erat et homo, utriusque naturae proprietatem ostendit: aliquando loquens secundum hoc quod ex hominibus assumpsit, aliquando secundum maiestatem divinitatis. Quod ergo ait si ego testimonium perhibeo de me ipso, testimonium meum non est verum, ex parte humanitatis est accipiendum; et est sensus: si ego homo de me perhibeo testimonium, scilicet absque Deo, testimonium meum non est verum; unde sequitur alius est qui testimonium perhibet de me. Pater enim testimonium perhibet de Christo, quia in Baptismo vox patris audita est, et in monte transfigurato Christo. Sequitur et scio quia verum est testimonium eius. Deus enim veritas est: ergo testimonium veritatis quid aliud potest esse quam verum? ALCUIN. Or thus; Christ, being both God and man, He shows the proper existence of both, by sometimes speaking according to the nature he took from man, sometimes according to the majesty of the Godhead. If I bear witness of Myself; My witness is not true: this is to be understood of His humanity; the sense being, If I, a man, bear witness of Myself, i.e. without God, My witness is not true: and then follows, There is another that bears witness of Me. The Father bore witness of Christ, by the voice which was heard at the baptism, and at the transfiguration on the mount. And I know that His witness is true; because He is the God of truth. How then can His witness be otherwise than true?
Chrysostomus: Sed secundum priorem intellectum possent illi dicere: si non est verum testimonium tuum, quomodo dicis: quoniam novi quod est verum testimonium Ioannis? Unde ad eorum suspicionem respondet dicens vos misistis ad Ioannem, et testimonium perhibuit veritati; quasi dicat: non misissetis ad Ioannem, si eum dignum fide non opinaremini. Et, quod utique maius est, non miserunt ad eum interrogandum de Christo, sed de seipso. Qui enim missi sunt, non dixerunt: quid dicis de Christo? Sed: tu quis es? (...). Quid dicis de teipso? Ita magnam de homine admirationem habebant. CHRYS. But ac cording to the former interpretation, they might say to Him, If your witness is not true, how say You, I know that the witness of John is true? But His answer meets the objection: You sent to John, and he bore witness of the truth: as if to say: You would not have sent to John, if you had not thought him worthy of credit. And what is more remarkable, they did send to him, not to ask Him about Christ, but about himself: For they who were sent out did not say, What say you of Christ? but, Who are you? what say you of yourself? In so great admiration did they hold him.
Alcuinus: Ille autem testimonium perhibuit, non sibi, sed veritati; sicut amicus veritatis veritati Christo testimonium perhibuit. Non autem dominus refellit testimonium Ioannis, quod vere necessarium fuit; sed ostendit non ita debere homines in Ioannem intendere ut iam non putent solum Christum sibi esse necessarium; unde subdit ego autem non ab homine testimonium accepi. ALCUIN. But he bore witness not to himself, but to the truth: as the friend of the truth, he bore witness to the truth, i.e. Christ. Our Lord, on His part, does not reject the witness of John, as not being necessary, but shows only that men ought not to give such attention to John as to forget that Christ’s witness was all that was necessary to Himself. But I receive not, He says, testimony from men.
Beda: Quia non indigeo. Ioannes autem etsi testimonium perhibuit, non tamen ut Christus cresceret, sed ut homines ad ipsius cognitionem promoveret. BEDE. Because I do not want it. John, though he bore witness, did it not that Christ might increase, but that men might be brought to the knowledge of Him.
Chrysostomus: Testimonium etiam Ioannis Dei testimonium erat: ab illo enim discens dixit quod dixit. Sed ne dicant: unde manifestum est quod a Deo didicit quod didicit? Eorum suspicionem correxit, dicens sed hoc dico ut vos salvi sitis, quasi dicat: ego quidem Deus existens, non indigebam huiusmodi testimonio humano: quia vero ei magis attenditis, et eum magis omnibus fide dignum putatis, mihi autem neque miracula facienti credidistis; propter hoc vobis commemoro testimonium illius: ut enim non dicant: quid igitur si ille dixit, nos autem non suscepimus? Ostendit quoniam non acceptaverunt quae ab eo dicta sunt; unde sequitur ille erat lucerna ardens et lucens: vos autem voluistis ad horam exultare in luce eius. Hoc autem quod dicit ad horam, facilitatem credendi ostendit, et quam cito ab eo resilierunt: quod si non fecissent, cito eos ad Iesum manuduxisset. Vocando autem eum lucernam, ostendit quoniam non ex se habebat lumen, sed a spiritus sancti gratia. CHRYS. Even the witness of John was the witness of God: for what he said, God taught him. But to anticipate their asking how it appeared that God taught John, as if the Jews had objected that John’s witness might not be true, our Lord anticipates them by saying, “you sought him yourselves to inquire of him; that is why I use his testimony, for I need it not.” He adds, But these things I say that you might be saved. As if He said, I being God, needed not this human kind of testimony. But, since you attend more to him, and think him more worthy of credit than any one else, while you do not believe me, though I work miracles; for this cause I remind you of his testimony. But had they not received John’s testimony? Before they have time to ask this, He answers it: He was a burning and a shining light, and you were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. He says this to show, how lightly they had held by John, and how soon they had left him, thus preventing him from leading them to Christ. He calls him a candle, because John had not his light from himself; but from the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Alcuinus: Ioannes enim erat lucerna illuminatus a Christo luce, ardens fide et dilectione, lucens verbo et actione: qui praemissus est, ut inimicos Christi confunderet, secundum illud: paravi lucernam Christo meo: inimicos eius induam confusione. ALCUIN. John was a candle lighted by Christ, the Light, burning with faith and love, shining in word and deed. He was sent before, to confound the enemies of Christ, according to the Psalm, I have ordained a lantern for Mine Anointed; as for His enemies, I shall clothe them with shame.
Chrysostomus: Ad Ioannem igitur vos duco, non quasi illius indigens testimonio, sed ut vos salvemini: nam habeo maius testimonium Ioanne; et hoc est quod sequitur ego autem habeo testimonium maius Ioanne. Hoc autem est quod est ab operibus; unde sequitur opera enim quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea, ipsa opera quae ego facio, testimonium perhibent de me, quia misit me pater. CHRYS. I therefore direct you to John, not because I want this testimony, but that you may: for I have greater witness than that of John, i.e. that of my works; The works which the Father hash given Me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.
Alcuinus: Quod enim caecos illuminat, aures aperit, ora mutorum resolvit, Daemonia fugat, mortuos suscitat: opera haec testimonium perhibent de Christo. ALCUIN. That He enlightens the blind, that He opens the deaf ear, looses the mouth of the dumb, casts out devils, raises the dead; these works hear witness of Christ.
Hilarius de Trin: Unigenitus enim Deus, non hominis testimonio tantum, sed etiam virtutis, docet esse se filium: opera enim eius quae facit, testantur eum a patre missum. Itaque filii obedientia et paterna auctoritas docentur in misso. Sed quia opera non sufficiunt in credibilibus ad testimonium, sequitur et qui misit me pater, ipse testimonium perhibet de me. Revolvite evangelica volumina, et omne eorum opus recensete: nullum aliud patris de filio testimonium extat in libris, quam quod hic sit filius suus. Quid infertur hodie calumniae, ut adoptio nominis sit, ut mendax Deus sit, ut nomina inania sint? HILARY. The Only-begotten God shows Himself to be the Son, on the testimony not of man only, but of His own power. The works which He does, bear witness to His being sent from the Father. Therefore the obedience of the Son and the authority of the Father are set forth in Him who was sent. But the testimony of works not being sufficient evidence, it follows, And the Father Himself which has sent Me, has borne witness of Me. Open the Evangelic volumes, and examine their whole range: no testimony of the Father to the Son is given in any of the books, other than that He is the Son. So what a calumny is it in men now saying that this is only a name of adoption: thus making God a liar, and names unmeaning.
Beda in Ioannem: Missio autem incarnatio eius debet intelligi. Denique ostendit quod Deus incorporeus sit, et quod corporalibus et visibilibus oculis videri non possit; unde sequitur neque vocem eius unquam audistis, neque speciem eius vidistis. BEDE. By His mission we must understand His incarnation. Lastly, He shows that God is incorporeal, and cannot be seen by the bodily eye: You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.
Alcuinus: Possent enim Iudaei dicere: nos soliti sumus vocem domini audire in Sina, et eum vidimus in specie ignis. Si ergo Deus perhibet testimonium de te, nos intelligeremus vocem domini. Contra hoc dicit: ego habeo testimonium a patre, quamvis non intelligatis: quia vos nunquam audistis vocem eius, neque speciem eius vidistis. ALCUIN. The Jews might say, We heard the voice of the Lord at Sinai, and saw Him under the appearance of fire. If God then bears witness of You, we should know His voice. To which He replies, I have the witness of the Father, though you understand it not; because you never heard His voice, or saw His shape.
Chrysostomus: Quomodo ergo Moyses dicit: si facta est aliquando huiusmodi res, ut audiret populus vocem Dei loquentis de medio ignis, sicut tu audisti et vidisti? Vidisse etiam eum dicuntur Isaias et alii plures. Quid ergo est quod nunc ait Christus? In philosophicum eos inducit dogma, paulatim ostendens quoniam neque vox circa Deum est neque species; sed superior et figuris est et loquelis talibus. Sicut enim dixit neque vocem eius audistis, propter hoc non indicat quod vocem emittat, sed non audibilem; ita dicens neque speciem eius vidistis, non hoc dicit quod speciem sensibilem habeat et visibilem, sed quoniam nihil horum est circa Deum. CHRYS. How then says Moses, Ask - whether there has been any such thing as this great thing is: did ever people hear the voice of God, speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard and seen? Isaiah too, and many others, are said to have seen Him. So what does Christ mean here? He means to impress upon them the philosophical doctrine, that God has neither voice, or appearance, or shape; but is superior to such modes of speaking of Him. For as in saying, You have never heard His voice, He does not mean to say that He has a voice, only not an audible one to them; so when He says, Nor have even His shape, no tangible, sensible, or visible shape is implied to belong to God: but all such mode of speaking is pronounced inapplicable to God.
Alcuinus: Non enim carnalibus auribus, sed spirituali intelligentia per gratiam spiritus sancti audiri potest. Non ergo vocem spiritalem audierant, quoniam eum amare et praeceptis eius obedire nolebant; neque speciem eius viderunt, quia non exterioribus oculis videri potest, sed fide et dilectione. ALCUIN. For it is not by the carnal ear, but by the spiritual understanding, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, that God is heard. And they did not hear the spiritual voice, because they did not love or obey Him, nor saw they His shape; inasmuch as that is not to be seen by the outward eye, but by faith and love.
Chrysostomus: Sed neque possibile erat eis dicere quod praecepta eius suscepissent et servarent; ideoque subiungit et verbum eius non habetis in vobis manens, idest praecepta Dei, legem et prophetas: etsi enim ea Deus constituit, sed apud vos non sunt: et si Scripturae ubique docent ut mihi credatis, vos autem non creditis, manifestum est quod sermo eius deficit a vobis. Et propter hoc subdit quia quem misit ille, huic vos non creditis. CHRYS. But it was impossible for them to declare that they had received, and obeyed God’s commands: and therefore He adds, You have not His word abiding in you; i.e. the commandments, the law, and the prophets; though God instituted them, you have them not. For if the Scriptures every where tell you to believe in Me, and you believe not, it is manifest that His word is gone from you: For whom He has sent, Him you believe not.
Alcuinus: Vel aliter verbum quod in principio erat, non habent in se manens qui verbum Dei quod audiunt, et memoria tenere et opere implere contemnunt. Dixerat igitur se habere testimonium a Ioanne, ab operibus, a patre; addit et testimonium a lege quae data est per Moysen, dicens scrutamini Scripturas, in quibus putatis vitam aeternam habere; et illae sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me: quasi dicat: vos in Scripturis putatis vitam aeternam habere, et me quasi contrarium Moysi repudiatis: testimonio ipsius Moysi me esse Deum intelligere potestis, si ipsas Scripturas diligenter investigatis. Omnis enim Scriptura testimonium perhibet de Christo, sive per figuras, sive per prophetas, sive per Angelorum ministeria. Sed his Iudaei de Christo non crediderunt; et ideo vitam aeternam habere non possunt; unde sequitur et non vultis venire ad me, ut vitam habeatis; quasi dicat: Scripturae perhibent testimonium; et tamen per tot testimonia non vultis venire ad me; idest, non vultis mihi credere, et a me quaerere veram salutem. ALCUIN. Or thus; they cannot have abiding in them the Word which was in the beginning, who came not to keep in mind, or fulfill in practice, that word of God which they hear. Having mentioned the testimonies of John, and the Father, and of His works, He adds now that of the Mosaic Law: Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me: as if He said, you think you have eternal life in the Scriptures, and reject Me as being opposed to Moses: but you will find that Moses himself testifies to My being God, if you search the Scripture carefully. All Scripture indeed bears witness of Christ, whether by its types, or by prophets, or by the ministering of Angels. But the Jews did not believe these intimations of Christ, and therefore could not obtain eternal life: You will not come to Me, that you may have life; meaning, The Scriptures bear witness of Me, but you will not come to Me notwithstanding, i.e. you will not believe in Me, and seek for salvation at my hands.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Vel aliter potest continuari. Possent illi dicere: qualiter si vocem eius non audivimus, Deus tibi testatus est? Et ideo dicit scrutamini Scripturas, ostendens quod per has testatus est Deus de eo: etenim in Iordane testatus est, et in monte. Sed vocem quidem factam in monte non audierunt, factam autem in Iordane audierunt, sed non attenderunt. Propterea mittit eos ad Scripturas, ostendens quoniam et patris testimonium illic est. Non autem ad lectionem simplicem Scripturarum, sed ad scrutationem exquisitam eos mittebat: quia ea quae de eo dicebantur in Scripturis, desuper obumbrabantur; neque in superficie exprimebantur, sed velut quidam thesaurus recondebantur. Non dicit autem: in quibus habetis vitam aeternam; sed in quibus aestimatis vos habere; ostendens quoniam non capiebant magnum fructum et nobilem ex Scripturis, sola lectione aestimantes se salvari, cum fide essent privati; propter quod subdit et non vultis venire ad me: quia ei credere nolebant. CHRYS. Or the connection may be given thus. They might say to Him, How, if we have never heard God’s voice, has God borne witness to you? So He says, Search the Scriptures; meaning that God had borne witness of Him by the Scriptures. He had borne witness indeed at the Jordan, and on the mount. But they did not hear the voice on the mount, and did not attend to it at the Jordan. Wherefore He sends them to the Scriptures, when they would also find the Father’s testimony. He did not send them however to the Scriptures simply to read them, but to examine them attentively, because Scripture ever threw a shade over its own meaning, and did not display it on the surface. The treasure was, as it were, hidden from their eve. He does not say, For in them you have eternal life, but, For in them you think you have eternal life; meaning that they did not reap much fruit from the Scriptures, thinking, as they did, that they should be saved by the mere reading of them, without faith. For which reason He adds, You will not come to Me; i.e. you will not believe on Me.
Beda: Quod autem venire pro credere ponatur, Psalmista ostendit dicens: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Subdit autem ut vitam habeatis: si enim anima quae peccat moritur, ipsi anima et mente mortui erant. Promittebat ergo illis vitam animae, vel felicitatis aeternae. BEDE. That coming is put for believing we know, Come to Him, and be lightened. He adds, That you might have life; For, if the soul which sin dies, they were dead in soul and mind. And therefore He promises the life of the soul, i.e. eternal happiness.

Lectio 10
41 δόξαν παρὰ ἀνθρώπων οὐ λαμβάνω, 42 ἀλλὰ ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. 43 ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με: ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήμψεσθε. 44 πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεῦσαι, δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε; 45 μὴ δοκεῖτε ὅτι ἐγὼ κατηγορήσω ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα: ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμῶν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ὑμεῖς ἠλπίκατε. 46 εἰ γὰρ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί, περὶ γὰρ ἐμοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψεν. 47 εἰ δὲ τοῖς ἐκείνου γράμμασιν οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς τοῖς ἐμοῖς ῥήμασιν πιστεύσετε;
41. I receive not honor from men. 42. But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. 43. I am come in my Father’s name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. 44. How can you believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God only? 45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, in whom you trust. 46. For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Quia dominus supra meminit et Ioannis, et testimonii Dei, et operum suorum, ut eos ad seipsum attraheret, probabile erat multos suspicari quod haec diceret, gloriam hominum amans; et ideo contra hoc dicit claritatem ab homine non accipio; hoc est, non indigeo. Non enim est mea natura talis ut indigeat quae ab hominibus est gloria. Si enim sol a lucernae lumine non recipit adiectionem, multo magis ego humana gloria non indigeo. CHRYS. Our Lord having made mention of John, and the witness of God, and His own works, many, who did not see H that His motive was to induce them to believe, might suspect Him of a desire for human glory, and therefore He says, I receive not honor from men: i.e. I do not want it. My nature is not such as to want that glory, which comes from men. For if the Son receives no addition from the light of a candle, much more am not I in want of human glory.
Alcuinus: Vel claritatem ab hominibus non accipio; idest, laudem humanam non quaero: non enim veni ut honorem ab hominibus acciperem carnalem, sed honorem hominibus darem spiritualem. Non ergo ideo hoc loquor ut gloriam meam quaeram, sed condoleo vobis errantibus, et volo vos reducere ad viam veritatis; unde dicit sed cognovi vos, quia dilectionem Dei non habetis in vobis. ALCUIN. Or, I receive not honor from men: i.e. I seek not human praise; for I came not to receive carnal honor from men, but to give spiritual honor to men. I do not bring forward this testimony then, because I seek my own glory; but because I compassionate your wandering, and wish to bring you back to the way of truth. Hence what follows, But I know you that you have not the love of God in you.
Chrysostomus: Quasi dicat: ideo hoc dixi, ut convincam vos quoniam propter amorem Dei me non persequimini: etenim ipse testatur mihi et per opera et per Scripturas. Oportebat igitur ut sicut me abiciebatis, aestimantes esse Deo contrarium, ita nunc ad me veniretis, si Deum amaretis; sed non amatis. Non autem ab his solum, sed etiam a futuris hoc ostendit, dicens ego veni in nomine patris mei, et non accepistis me. Si alius venerit in nomine suo, illum accipietis. Ideo dicit se in nomine patris venisse, ut omnem abscindat occasionem indevotionis. CHRYS. As if to say, I said this to prove that it is not from your love of God, that you persecute Me; for He bears witness to Me, by My own works, and by the Scriptures. So that, if you loved God, as you rejected Me, thinking Me against God, so now you would come to Me. But you do not love Him. And He proves this, not only from what they do now, but from what they will do in time to come: I am come in My Father’s name, and you received Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. He says plainly, I am come in the Father’s name, that they might never be able to plead ignorance as an excuse
Alcuinus: Ac si dicat: ideo veni in mundum ut per me glorificetur nomen patris, quia patri omnia attribuo. Dilectionem ergo Dei non habebant, quia nolebant eum recipere qui patris venerat facere voluntatem. Antichristus autem veniet in nomine non patris, sed suo, ut non gloriam patris, sed suam quaerat. Quia enim Iudaei noluerunt recipere Christum, poena peccati huius congruet ut recipiant Antichristum; ut qui nolunt credere veritati, credant mendacio. ALCUIN. As if He said, For this cause came I into the world, that through Me the name of the Father might be glorified; for I attribute all to Him. As then they would not receive Him, Who came to do His Father’s will; they had not the love of God. But Antichrist will come not in the Father’s name, but in his own, to seek, not the Father’s glory, but his own. And the Jews having rejected Christ, it was a fit punishment on them, that they should receive Antichrist, and believe a lie, as they would not believe the Truth.
Augustinus de Verb. Dom: Sed audiamus et Ioannem: audisti quia Antichristus venit, et nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt. Quid autem expavescit in Antichristo, nisi quia nomen suum honoraturus est et nomen domini contempturus? Quid aliud facit qui dicit: ego iustifico, nisi boni fuerimus, peristis? Ergo vita mea ex te pendebit, et salus mea ex te religabitur. Ita ne oblitus sim fundamentum meum? Nonne petra erat Christus? AUG. Hear John, As you have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists. But what do you dread in Antichrist, except that he will exalt his own name, and despise the name of the Lord? And what else does he do, who says, “I justify;” or those who say, Unless we are good, you must perish?” Wherefore my life shall depend on You, and my salvation shall be fastened to You. Shall I so forget my foundation? Is not my rock Christ?
Chrysostomus: Sic igitur irrefragabilem indevotionis eorum ponit demonstrationem; quasi dicat: si ut amantes Deum me persequeremini, multo magis in Antichristo hoc vos facere oporteret: ille enim non dicit se a patre missum, neque secundum voluntatem illius venire; sed e contrario ea quae sibi non congruunt rapiens, super omnia Deum se esse dicet. Manifestum est igitur quod livoris persecutio erat qua Christum persequebantur, et odii in Deum. Deinde causam eorum infidelitatis ponit, dicens quomodo vos potestis credere qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis, et gloriam quae a solo Deo est non quaeritis? Hinc enim rursus ostendit quoniam non quae Dei sunt intendebant, sed propriam volebant passionem defendere. CHRYS. Here is the crowning proof of their impiety. He says, as it were, If it was the love of God that made you persecute me, you would persecute Antichrist much more: for he does not profess to be sent by the Father, or to come according to His will; but, on the contrary, usurping what does not belong to him, will proclaim himself to be God over all. It is manifest that your persecution of Me is from malice and hatred of God. Then He gives the reason of their unbelief: How can you believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that comes from God only? another proof this, that theirs was not a zeal for God, but a gratification of their own passions.
Alcuinus: Magnum igitur vitium est iactantia, et humanae laudis ambitio, quae de se vult aestimari quod de se non habet. Ideo enim non possunt credere, quia superba mens eorum laudari desiderat, et se super alios efferre. ALCUIN. How faulty then is the boasting temper, and that eagerness for human praise, which likes to be thought to have what it has not, and would fain be thought to have all that it has, by its own strength. Men of such temper cannot believe; for in their hearts, they are bent solely on gaining praise, and setting themselves up above others.
Beda: Hoc autem vitium melius caveri non potest, quam ut ad conscientias nostras redeamus, nosque pulverem esse consideremus; et si quid nobis boni inesse deprehendimus, non nobis, sed Deo ascribamus. Instruimur etiam ut semper nos tales exhibeamus quales ab aliis videri desideramus. Denique possent ipsi respondere: ergo accusabis nos apud patrem? Et ideo eorum quaestionem praeveniens subdit nolite putare quia ego accusaturus sim vos apud patrem. BEDE. The best way of guarding against this sin, is to bring to our consciences the remembrance, that we are dust, and should ascribe all the good that we have not to ourselves, but to God. And we should endeavor always to be such, as we wish to appear to others. Then, as they might ask, Will you accuse us then to the Father? He anticipates this question: Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father.
Chrysostomus: Quia scilicet non veni damnare, sed salvare. Est qui accusat vos, Moyses, in quo vos speratis. Sicut enim de Scripturis supra dixit in quibus putatis vitam aeternam habere, ita et de Moyse ait in quo vos speratis, ex propriis eos ubique capiens. Sed dicent: qualiter nos ille accusabit? Quid tibi et Moysi commune, qui sabbatum solvisti? Et ideo subdit si enim crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Haec ex superioribus constitutionem habent: cum enim in confessionem deductum sit quod a Deo veni, ab operibus, a voce Ioannis, a patris testimonio, manifestum est quod Moyses eos accusabit; etenim dixit: si quis venerit signa faciens et ad Deum ducens, et futura praedicens cum veritate, oportet ei obedire. Christus autem haec omnia fecit; nec ei crediderunt. CHRYS. For I am not come to condemn, but to save. There is one that accuses you, even Moses, in whom you trust. As He had said of the Scriptures above: In them you think you have eternal life. So now of Moses He says, In whom you trust, always answering them out of their authorities. But they will say, How will he accuse us? What have you to do with Moses, you who have broken the sabbath? So He adds: For had you believed Moses, you would perhaps hare believed Me, for he wrote of me. This is connected with what was said before. For where evidence that He came from God had been forced upon them by His words, by the voice of John, and the testimony of the Father, it was certain that Moses would condemn them; for he had said, If any one shall come, doing miracles, leading men to God, and foretelling the future with certainty, you must obey him. Christ did all this, and they did not obey Him.
Alcuinus: forsitan autem more nostro posuit, non quia dubitatio sit in Deo. Scripsit autem de Christo Moyses dicens: prophetam vobis suscitabit Deus de fratribus vestris: tamquam me ipsum audietis. ALCUIN. Perhaps, He says, in accommodation to our way of speaking, not because there is really any doubting in God. Moses prophesied of Christ, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up from among your brethren like to me: Him shall you hear.
Augustinus contra Faustum: Sed et omne quod scripsit Moyses, de Christo est, idest, ad Christum omnino pertinet, sive quod eum figuris rerum vel gestarum vel dictarum praenuntiet, sive quod eius gratiam, gloriamque commendet. Sequitur si autem illius litteris non creditis, quomodo verbis meis credetis? AUG. But, in fact, the whole that Moses wrote, was written of Christ, i.e. it has reference to Him principally; whether it point to Him by figurative actions, or expression; or set forth His grace and glory. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe My words.
Theophylactus: Quasi dicat: ipse etiam scripsit, et apud vos libros reliquit, ut si forte oblivisceremini, de facili recordari possitis; et cum scriptis non credidistis, quomodo verbis meis non scriptis credetis? THEOPHYL. As if I He said, He has even written, and has left his books among you, as a constant memento to you, lest you forget His words. And since you believe not his writings, how can you believe My unwritten words?
Alcuinus: Ex hoc etiam colligitur, quia qui legis praecepta, quae rapinam et alia mala prohibent, implere negligunt, et dicta Evangelii, quae perfectiora et subtiliora sunt, implere non valent. ALCUIN. From this we may infer too, that he who knows the commandments against stealing, and other crimes, and neglects them, will never fulfill the more perfect and refined precepts of the Gospel.
Chrysostomus: Et quidem si attenderent his quae dicebantur, oportebat quaerere, et ab eo discere quae sunt illa quae Moyses de eo scripsit; sed silent: talis enim est nequitia, ut quicquid dicat aliquis vel faciat, maneat proprium venenum conservans. CHRYS. Indeed had they attended to His words, they ought and would have tried to learn from Him, what the things were which Moses had written of Him. But they are silent. For it is the nature of wickedness to defy persuasion. Do what you will, it retains its venom to the last.

CHAPTER VI
Lectio 1
1 μετὰ ταῦτα ἀπῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος. 2 ἠκολούθει δὲ αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι ἐθεώρουν τὰ σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων. 3 ἀνῆλθεν δὲ εἰς τὸ ὄρος Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. 4 ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. 5 ἐπάρας οὖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ θεασάμενος ὅτι πολὺς ὄχλος ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγει πρὸς Φίλιππον, πόθεν ἀγοράσωμεν ἄρτους ἵνα φάγωσιν οὗτοι; 6 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν, αὐτὸς γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἔμελλεν ποιεῖν. 7 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ [ὁ] Φίλιππος, διακοσίων δηναρίων ἄρτοι οὐκ ἀρκοῦσιν αὐτοῖς ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχύ [τι] λάβῃ. 8 λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, Ἀνδρέας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Σίμωνος Πέτρου, 9 ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους; 10 εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ποιήσατε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀναπεσεῖν. ἦν δὲ χόρτος πολὺς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. ἀνέπεσαν οὖν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι. 11 ἔλαβεν οὖν τοὺς ἄρτους ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εὐχαριστήσας διέδωκεν τοῖς ἀνακειμένοις, ὁμοίως καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀψαρίων ὅσον ἤθελον. 12 ὡς δὲ ἐνεπλήσθησαν λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, συναγάγετε τὰ περισσεύσαντα κλάσματα, ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται. 13 συνήγαγον οὖν, καὶ ἐγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων ἐκ τῶν πέντε ἄρτων τῶν κριθίνων ἃ ἐπερίσσευσαν τοῖς βεβρωκόσιν. 14 οἱ οὖν ἄνθρωποι ἰδόντες ὃ ἐποίησεν σημεῖον ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον.
1. After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias. 2. And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. 3. And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. 4. And the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. 5. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come to him, he said to Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? 6. And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. 7. Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little. 8. One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, says to him, 9. There is a lad here, which has five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? 10. And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. 12. When they were filled, he said to his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. 13. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten. 14. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world.

Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Sicut iacula cum in durum aliquid inciderint, magno impetu huc illuc disperguntur; mollius vero assecuta figuntur et desinunt: ita et si cum audacibus hominibus impetuose incesserimus, saeviunt magis; si autem cesserimus, facile mollimus eorum insaniam. Propterea Christus furorem ex praemissis sermonibus natum, secedendo mitigavit, in Galilaeam vadens; non tamen ad eadem loca unde Ierusalem ascenderat: non enim in Cana Galilaeae, sed ultra mare ivit; unde ait post haec abiit trans mare Galilaeae, quod est Tiberiadis. CHRYS. As missiles rebound with great force from a hard body, and fly off in all directions, whereas a softer material retains and stops them; so violent men are only excited to greater rage by violence on the side of their opponents, whereas gentleness softens them. Christ quieted the irritation of the Jews by retiring from Jerusalem. He went into Galilee, but not to Cana again, but beyond the sea: After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
Alcuinus: Hoc mare pro diversitate locorum diversis nominibus vocatur; sed quantum ad praesentem locum, mare Galilaeae propter provinciam, Tiberiadis autem a civitate dicitur. Mare autem dicitur, non quia sit amara aqua; sed iuxta Hebraicum modum, omnium congregationes aquarum maria vocantur: quod mare dominus etiam frequenter transit, ut populis ibi manentibus verbum praedicationis impendat. ALCUIN. This sea has different names, from the different places with which it is connected; the sea of Galilee, from the province; the sea of Tiberias, from the city of that name. It is called a sea, though it is not salt water, that name being applied to all large pieces of water, in Hebrew. This sea our Lord often passes over, in going to preach to the people bordering on it.
Theophylactus: Transit enim de loco ad locum probando populi voluntatem, et avidiores homines uniuscuiusque civitatis et sollicitiores reddens; unde sequitur et sequebatur eum multitudo magna quia videbant signa quae faciebat super his qui infirmabantur. THEOPHYL. He goes from place to place to try the dispositions of people, and excite a desire to hear Him: And a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His miracles which He did on them that were diseased.
Alcuinus: Scilicet quod caecos illuminabat, et alia huiusmodi. Et sciendum est, quod quoscumque in corpore sanabat, eos pariter reformabat in anima. ALCUIN. viz. His giving sight to the blind, and other like miracles. And it should be understood, that all, whom He healed in body, He renewed likewise in soul.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Tanta autem doctrina potientes, a signis magis movebantur, quod grossioris mentis erant. Signa enim, ut ait Paulus, non sunt data fidelibus, sed infidelibus. Sapientiores autem erant illi de quibus dicitur quod stupebant in doctrina eius. Sed quare non dicit quae signa videbant eum facientem? Quoniam hic Evangelista maiorem partem libri in sermonibus domini consumere studuit. Sequitur subiit in montem Iesus, et ibi sedebat cum discipulis suis. In montem quidem ascendit propter signum quod fieri debebat. Sed quod discipulos secum ascendere fecit, accusatio multitudinis erat non sequentis eum. Ascendit etiam in montem erudiens nos a tumultibus et ab ea quae in mundo est turbatione requiescere; apta enim ad philosophiam solitudo est. Sequitur erat autem proximum Pascha dies festus Iudaeorum. Vide qualiter in anno integro nihil plus Evangelista nos docuit de signis Christi quam quod paralyticum sanavit, et filium reguli: non enim studuit universa annuntiare, sed ex multis magna et pauca. Qualiter igitur non ascendit ad diem festum? Paulatim enim solvebat legem, occasionem capiens a Iudaica nequitia. CHRYS. Though favored with such teaching, they were influenced less by it, than by the miracles; a sign of their low state of belief: for Paul says of tongues, that they are for a sign, not to them that believe, I but to them that believe not. They were wiser of whom it is said, that they were astonished at His doctrine. The Evangelist does not say what miracles He wrought, the great object of his book being to give our Lord’s discourses. It follows: And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there sat with His disciples. He went up into the mountain, on account of the miracle which was going to be done. That the disciples alone ascended with Him, implies that the people w ho stayed behind were in fault for not following. He went up to the mountain too, as a lesson to us to retire from the tumult and confusion of the world, and leave wisdom in solitude. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. Observe, in a whole year, the Evangelist has told us of no miracles of Christ, except His healing the impotent man, and the nobleman’s son. His object was to give not a regular history, but only a few of the principal acts of our Lord. But why did not our Lord go up to the feast? He was taking occasion, from the wickedness of the Jews, gradually to abolish the Law.
Theophylactus: Quia enim Iudaei eum persequebantur, occasionem recessus accipiens, legem exclusit, innuens observantibus quod, veritate adveniente, omnis cessat figura; et quod legibus non subicitur, ut legalia festa perficeret. Et vide hoc quod non erat festum Christi, sed Iudaeorum. THEOPHYL. The persecutions of the Jews gave Him reason for retiring, and thus setting aside the Law. The truth being now revealed, types were at an end, and He was under no obligation to keep the Jewish feasts. Observe the expression, a feast of the Jews, not a feast of Christ.
Beda: Si quis verba Evangelistarum diligenter consideraverit, facile cognoscet quia unius anni spatium fuit inter decollationem Ioannis et passionem domini. Cum enim Matthaeus dicat, quia dominus audita nece Ioannis secessit in desertum locum, et ibi turbas pavit; et Ioannes dicit quod proximum erat Pascha Iudaeorum quando turbas pavit, aperte demonstratur quia imminente paschali festivitate decollatus est Ioannes. Evoluto autem unius anni spatio, passus est Christus in eadem festivitate. Sequitur cum sublevasset ergo oculos Iesus, et vidisset quia multitudo maxima venit ad eum, dixit ad Philippum: unde ememus panes ut manducent hi? Dixit cum sublevasset oculos Iesus, ut disceremus quia oculos non erigebat huc atque illuc; sed pudice sedebat attentus cum discipulis suis. BEDE. If we compare the accounts of the different Evangelists, we shall find very clearly, that there was an interval of a year between the beheading of John, and our Lord’s Passion. For, since Matthew says that our Lord, on hearing of the death of John, withdrew into a desert place, where He fed the multitude; and John says that the Passover was nigh, when He fed the multitude; it is evident that John was beheaded shortly before the Passover. And at the same feast, the next year Christ suffered. It follows, When Jesus then lifted up His eyes, and saw a great company come to Him, He said to Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? When Jesus lifted up His eyes, this is to show us, that Jesus was not generally with His eyes lifted up, looking about Him, but sitting calm and attentive, surrounded by His disciples.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Neque etiam simpliciter sedebat cum discipulis suis, sed diligenter loquens aliquid eis, et eos ad seipsum convertens. Deinde respiciens vidit turbam ad se venientem. Cuius igitur gratia Philippum interrogat? Sciebat enim quod discipulorum eius congregatio ampliori indigebat doctrina. Talis autem erat Philippus, qui postea dixit: ostende nobis patrem, et sufficit nobis. Propterea igitur prius eum erudiebat. Nam si simpliciter factum esset, miraculum non tantum appareret; nunc autem prius cogit confiteri inopiam, ut certius discat miraculi magnitudinem; unde sequitur hoc autem dicebat tentans eum.

Non quidem ignorans id quod debebat ab ipso dici; sed humano more hoc dictum est. Sicut enim quod dicitur: qui scrutatur corda hominum, non ostendit ignorantiae scrutationem, sed certissimae cognitionis: ita cum hic dicit quod tentavit eum, nihil aliud dicit quam quoniam sciebat certissime. Sed aliud est dicere, quoniam probatiorem eum faciebat, per talem interrogationem inducens in certissimam signi cognitionem. Propter hoc et Evangelista, ne infirmitate locutionis minorationem aliquam suspiceris, subiungit ipse enim sciebat quid esset facturus.

CHRYS. Nor did He only sit with His disciples, but conversed with them familiarly, and gained possession of their minds. Then He looked, and saw a crowd advancing. But why did He ask Philip that question? Because He knew that His disciples, and he especially, needed further teaching. For this Philip it was who said afterwards, Show us the Father, and it suffices us. And if the miracle had been performed at once, without any introduction, the greatness of it would not have been seen. The disciples were made to confess their own inability, that they might see the miracle more clearly; And this He said to prove him.

AUG. One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God never tempts any one; and there is another kind by which faith is tried. In this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciple. This is not meant to imply that He did not know what Philip would say; but is an accommodation to men’s way of speaking. For as the expression, Who searches the hearts of men, does not mean the searching of ignorance, but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried him, in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by adding, For He Himself knew what He would do.

Alcuinus: Interrogat igitur, non ut ignorata discat, sed ut discipulo adhuc rudi propriam tarditatem ostendat, quam ipse in se perpendere non valebat. ALCUIN. He asks him this question, not for His own information, but in order to show His yet unformed disciple his dullness of mind, which he could not perceive of himself.
Theophylactus: Vel etiam ut aliis ipsum ostenderet, non tamquam cor eius ignorans. THEOPHYL. Or to show others it. He was not ignorant of His disciple’s heart Himself.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Sed si dominus, secundum narrationem Ioannis, prospectis turbis quaesivit a Philippo, tentans eum, unde illis escae dari possent; potest movere quomodo sit verum, quod alii narraverunt, prius dixisse domino discipulos, ut dimitteret turbas. Quibus ille respondit, secundum Matthaeum: non habent necesse ire: date eis vos manducare. Intelligitur igitur, post haec verba dominum inspexisse multitudinem, et dixisse Philippo quod Ioannes commemorat, alii autem praetermiserunt. AUG. But if our Lord, according to John’s account, on seeing the multitude, asked Philip, tempting him, whence they could buy food for them, it is difficult at first to see how it can be true, according to the other account, that the disciples first told our Lord, to send away the multitude; and that our Lord replied, They need not depart; give you them to eat. We must understand then it was after saying this, that our Lord saw the multitude, and said to Philip what John had related, which has been omitted by the rest.
Chrysostomus: Vel aliter. Alia quidem sunt illa, alia autem sunt haec, non eisdem facta temporibus. CHRYS. Or they are two different occasions altogether.
Theophylactus: Philippum igitur dominus tentans utrum fidem haberet, invenit eum adhuc humanis passionibus subiacentem; quod patet ex hoc quod sequitur respondit ei Philippus: ducentorum denariorum panes non sufficiunt eis, ut unusquisque modicum quid accipiat. THEOPHYL. Thus tried by our Lord, Philip was found to be possessed which human notions, as appears from what follows, Philip answered Him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
Alcuinus: In quo tarditatem suam ostendit: nam si perfecte de creatore intelligeret, de eius potentiae largitate non diffideret. ALCUIN. Wherein he shows his dullness: for, had he perfect ideas of his Creator, he would not be thus doubting His power.
Augustinus: Quod autem Philippus hic apud Ioannem respondet, hoc Marcus a discipulis responsum esse commemorat, volens intelligi, hoc ex ore ceterorum Philippum respondisse; quamquam et pluralem numerum pro singulari usitatissime ponere potuerit. AUG. The reply, which is attributed to Philip by John, Mark puts in the mouth of all the disciples, either meaning us to understand that Philip spoke for the rest, or else putting the plural number for the singular, which is often done.
Theophylactus: Sed et Andream dominus similem Philippo invenit, quamvis altius de illo contemplantem; sequitur enim dicit ei unus ex discipulis eius, Andreas frater Simonis Petri: est puer unus hic qui habet quinque panes hordeaceos et duos pisces. THEOPHYL. Andrew is in the same perplexity that Philip is; only he has rather higher notions of our Lord: There its a lad here which has five barley loaves and two small fishes.
Chrysostomus: Aestimo quidem non sine causa id eum dicere; sed quia audiverat signum quod Eliseus de panibus hordeaceis fecerat: pavit enim de viginti panibus centum homines. Ascendit igitur mente in aliquod excelsum; sed ad summum non potuit pervenire; quod patet per hoc quod subdit sed haec quid sunt inter tantos? Aestimabat enim quod de paucioribus pauciora, et de pluribus plura facturus esset qui miracula faciebat; sed hoc non erat verum: similiter enim ei facile erat et de pluribus et de paucioribus pascere turbas: non enim materia subiecta indigebat; sed ne viderentur creaturae alienae esse ab eius sapientia, ipsis creaturis utitur ad materiam miraculorum. CHRYS. Probably He had some reason in his mind for this speech. He would know of Elijah’s miracle, by which a hundred men were fed with twenty loaves. This was a great step; but here he stopped. He did not rise any higher. For his next words are, But what are these among so many? He thought that less could produce less in a miracle, and more more; a great mistake; inasmuch as it was as easy for Christ to feed the multitude from a few fishes as from many. He did not really want any material to work from, but only made use of created things for this purpose in order to show that no part of the creation was severed from His wisdom.
Theophylactus: Confundantur Manichaei, qui dicunt, quod panes et omnia huiusmodi creata sunt a malo Deo: quia boni Dei filius Iesus Christus panes multiplicavit: nam si creaturae malae fuissent, nequaquam bonus mala multiplicasset. THEOPHYL. This passage confounds the Manicheans, who say that bread and all such things were created by an evil Deity. The Son of the good God, Jesus Christ, multiplied the loaves. Therefore they could not have been naturally evil; a good God would never have multiplied what was evil.
Augustinus de Cons. Evang: Quod autem Andreas apud Ioannem de quinque panibus et duobus piscibus suggessit, hoc ceteri, pluralem numerum pro singulari ponentes, ex discipulorum persona retulerunt. AUG. Andrew’s suggestion about the five loaves and two fishes, is given as coming from the disciples in general, in the other Evangelists, and the plural number is used.
Chrysostomus in Ioannem: Discamus autem hic qui voluptati attendimus quae comedebant mirabiles viri illi et magni, et quantitatem eorum quae inferebantur, et vilitatem mensae eorum. Nondum autem apparentibus panibus iussit eos discumbere, ut discas quoniam non entia ut entia ei subsistunt, sicut Paulus ait: qui vocat ea quae non sunt, tamquam ea quae sunt. Sequitur enim dicit eis Iesus: facite homines discumbere. CHRYS. And let those of us, who are given to pleasure, observe the plain and abstemious eating of those great and wonderful men. He made the men sit down before the loaves appeared, to teach us that with Him, things teat are not are as things that are, as Paul says, Who calls those things that be not, as though they were. The passage proceeds then: And Jesus said, Make the men sit down.
Alcuinus: Ad litteram homines discumbere dicimus iacendo comedere more antiquo; unde sequitur erat autem fenum multum in loco. ALCUIN. Sit down, i.e. lie down, as the ancient custom w as, which they could do, as there was much grass in the place.
Theophylactus: Idest herba viridis: erat enim Pascha, quod in primo mense veris perficiebatur. Sequitur discubuerunt ergo viri numero quasi quinque millia. Soli viri numerantur ab Evangelista, quia legalem consuetudinem sequebatur. Etenim Moyses a viginti annis et supra, populum connumeravit, nulla mentione de mulieribus facta: innuens quod omne quod virile est et iuvenile, dignum et honorabile est apud Deum. Sequitur accepit ergo Iesus panem, et cum gratias egisset, distribuit discumbentibus similiter et ex piscibus quantum volebant. THEOPHYL. i.e. green grass. It was the time of the Passover, which was kept the first month of the spring. So the men sat down in number about five thousand. The Evangelist only counts the men following the direction in the law. Moses numbered the people from twenty years old and upwards, making no mention of the women; to signify that the manly and juvenile character is especially honorable in God’s eyes. And Jesus took the loaves; and when He had given thanks, He distributed to them that were sat down: and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
Chrysostomus: Sed quare paralyticum debens sanare non orat, neque suscitans mortuos, neque mare quietans; hic autem orat gratias agens? Ut scilicet ostendat, eos qui comestionem incipiunt, gratias agere oportere Deo. Sed et aliter in minoribus maxime orat, ut discas quod non propter indigentiam orat. Si enim indigeret orare, multo magis in maioribus hoc fecisset; quia vero illa ex auctoritate facit, manifestum est quod hic condescendendo nobis, orat: et adhuc quoniam turba multa erat praesens, oportebat eis suaderi quod secundum voluntatem Dei advenerat: et ideo cum occulte aliquod miraculum faciebat, non orabat; sed coram multis orabat, ne crederent quod esset Deo contrarius. CHRYS. But why when He is going to heal the impotent, to raise the dead, to calm the sea, does He not pray, but here does give thanks? To teach us to give thanks to God, whenever we sit down to eat. And He prays more in lesser matters, in order to show that He does not pray from any motive of need. For had prayer been really necessary to supply His wants, His praying would have been in proportion to the importance of each particular work. But acting, as He does, on His own authority, it is evident, He only prays out of condescension to us. And, as a great multitude was collected, it was an opportunity of impressing on them, that His coming was in accordance with God’s will. Accordingly, when a miracle was private, He did not pray; when numbers were present, He did.
Hilarius de Trin: Quinque igitur panes offeruntur turbae, et franguntur: subrepunt in frangentium manus quaedam fragmentorum procreationes, non imminuitur unde praefringitur; et tamen praefringentis manum fragmenta occupant: non sensus, non visus profectum tam conspicabilis operationis assequitur; est quod non erat, videtur quod non intelligitur: solum superest ut Deus omnia posse credatur. HILARY. Five loaves are then set before the multitude, and broken. The broken portions pass th